After a
hearing in Court the judge or justice of the peace will make a decision. Almost inevitably the decision will not
please at least one person – indeed, sometimes everyone is unhappy about the
result.
That does
not mean the judge or justice of the peace got it wrong. The job of a judge or justice of the peace is
to make decisions and that means there is always going to be someone who wanted
one result and got another. The judge or
justice of the peace is only “wrong” if they grossly misapprehended the
evidence or made a serious mistake in the law.
A judge who, for example, believed one witness and disbelieved another
witness is almost never “wrong” in so doing.
The judge came to a decision and while it might not be the same decision
as someone else would make that does not make the decision an error.
This last
point explains why with is almost impossible to predict Court decisions with
certainty. There is a large element of
opinion, discretion and instinct in what a judge does. Sometimes it is very obvious that someone is
lying. But usually the difference
between what one and another witness says (for example) is subtle and both
witnesses may be telling the truth as best they can – perhaps neither is lying
but one witness is just mistaken.
Choosing, as a judge or justice of the peace must do, between two
witnesses trying to tell the truth is not easy – and what one judge or justice
of the peace may find convincing another may reject.
In any
event, suppose you have lost in Court and you believe the judge or justice of
the peace got the law wrong or really did misapprehend the evidence in a fundamental
way. What now?
For most
final rulings there is a right of appeal (there are only very limited rights of
review for interim decisions). What that
means is that a decision of a judge or justice of the peace can be review by a
higher court.
An appeal
will succeed only if you can show there was a serious error in apprehending the
evidence by the judge or justice of the peace or if there was a material legal
error. A serious error in apprehending
the evidence (sometimes called a “palpable and overriding error”) is hard to
demonstrate. Disagreeing with what the judge
or justice of the peace found is not enough – there has to be some pretty
obvious mistake of fact that goes to the heart of the decision. That’s unusual – judges and justices of the
peace seldom make such obvious errors. A
material legal error is also unusual – you have to show the judge or justice of
the peace made a legal error that in some way was significant to the final
decision. Most appeals fail because the
standard to have a decision set aside is high.
As you can see, even if you don’t like a
decision it seldom makes sense to launch an appeal. Only if you are confident the judge or
justice of made a major error should you appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment