Entertaining judgment

[Clitheroekid]

OK, it's not really a practical issue, but it is related to a legal issue, namely the extent to which parties in civil actions lie when giving evidence.

Of course it's well known by everyone involved that witnesses lie through their teeth on a regular basis. But usually judges are remarkably - some might say far too - tolerant. So instead of a judge saying "I take the view that Mr X was a bare-faced liar" he'll say "I find it difficult to place much reliance on the evidence given by Mr X".

So it's very refreshing to see a judge calling the liars out without mercy!

In the case of Rashid -v- Munir and others, a High Court appeal case in Leeds, Mr Justice Turner pulled no punches.

In his opening comment he describes the case as a "a festival of mendacity." Some other elegantly savage extracts:

"... the second defendant who assumed de facto control of the relevant businesses, the details of the operation and profitability of which were but lightly touched upon in the tax returns of the defendants."

"Clearly, the arrangements between the brothers were unorthodox and the judge's task was made no easier by the fact that he found that the evidence of all of them was utterly dishonest."

Of the evidence of the claimant, he remarked:

"… I do not believe him on this or indeed any other material matter."

"On any view, the second defendant was egregiously dishonest…" and "in his evidence was … as heroically dishonest as he is in his everyday life."

"The third defendant gave evidence in a facetious manner, including winking at the claimant's counsel at one stage, a manner which revealed to me that he regards telling the truth as simply no more than a lifestyle choice."

And he concluded:

Attempting to establish the common but unstated intention of a group of individuals all giving honest but conflicting evidence is difficult enough. Where, as here, each witness is attempting to outdo the other in a rich display of competitive dishonesty the task of the judge is unenviable. Notwithstanding these challenges, I am satisfied that the judge applied the correct legal test and reached a conclusion which fully reflected what little objective fact he could salvage from the tangled web of deceit which the parties had so enthusiastically weaved when giving their evidence.

And best of all he said he would ensure that the case file was sent to the DPP, no doubt in the hope of a prosecution for perjury.

If only more judges were prepared to say what they think!

The full judgment is here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/1258.html

[Lootman]

OK, it's not really a practical issue, but it is related to a legal issue, namely the extent to which parties in civil actions lie when giving evidence.

Of course it's well known by everyone involved that witnesses lie through their teeth on a regular basis. But usually judges are remarkably - some might say far too - tolerant. So instead of a judge saying "I take the view that Mr X was a bare-faced liar" he'll say "I find it difficult to place much reliance on the evidence given by Mr X".

So it's very refreshing to see a judge calling the liars out without mercy!

I have been personally and directly involved in eight legal cases, and have also served on a jury. I know for a fact that there were lies told in every one of them. Because I lied. And so did the other party.

And although lies sometimes get caught out as in this case, they often do not. It really depends on how good you are at lying. Having a good memory helps, as does a keen awareness of what others know and can prove. But as much as a tragedy it is for a legal system that ostensibly relies on people telling the truth, in reality when there is a lot at stake, people lie through their teeth and then lie some more.

My other reaction to this amusing tale is to be surprised that all these decisions and determinations were down to a single person - the judge. As I believe you know most of the cases I have been involved in were in the US, and there judges rarely rule on cases. Their job is to move things along and ensure that the rules of civil procedure are followed. There is no equivalent of a Magistrate's Court - even minor criminal cases have a jury. And most civil cases are decided by a jury as well. So-called "bench trials", where a Judge decides alone, are unusual except in specialist areas like family, bankruptcy or immigration law.

So my reaction here is that whether I am a claimant/plaintiff or a defendant, I'd rather a jury made such determinations that an old man who, whilst he may know a lot about the law, may not have much in common with those before him - something a jury of one's peers will have. There is something a little disturbing to me about one's fate being in the hands of just one person, no matter how erudite he may claim to be.