There is a very strange tradition in legal writing of not saying judges' names.
We have experienced this as our court submissions, case notes and articles are repeatedly edited. For example, a judgment by 'Judge van Niekerk' becomes a judgment by 'the Court'. Even a reference to a judgment written by 'Judge Davis' once became a judgment 'by the Court'.
Come on! Even Dennis Davis? Now Judge Davis is a very cool judge, so even if saying his name did summon him , we doubt he would torment anyone or destroy the world.
Perhaps we are too influenced by our clients: Workers have always made a point of knowing their judges' names, remembering these names, and sometimes even putting the names in pamphlets and on placards and banners. (We won't post some of the banners, because they're usually made after an unfavourable judgment, and we're casual lawyers, not fools.)
This is not merely an important struggle practice - which ensures that all state decision-makers are held accountable, and not just a few unpopular politicians - it is also based on a realistic understanding of how law works. Law scholars even wrote about this in the 1930s and 1940s - they analysed court judgments and 'discovered' that legal decision-making is not a neutral, autonomous, rational process, and that sometimes, judges are people too - with personal preferences, politics, and bad moods. (The social scientists looked very pleased with themselves when this happened.)
So please come back later this week, when we will tell you about a judgment written by Judge Kate Savage on workers carrying 'weapons' during strike demonstrations.
And since we did promise music, please join us and Destiny's Child, in promoting legal realism and judicial accountability.
Disclaimer: We cannot guarantee that, if you say Judge Davis' name three times, he will appear. But he may.
Comments