Your Honour

Australia suffers from a deep national disrespect for the law and the courts. It isn't hard to see the reason. The magistrates and judges see no reason to earn the respect of the common citizen. Their attitude is that they are above the citizenry because of feudal tradition.

When a person addresses a magistrate or judge with the honorific, "Your Honour", what is does it mean?

When a person addresses a magistrate or judge in the court as "Your Honour", it is not a plea; it is not just a recognition of the office; it is a demand that the person who weilds the brutality of law live up to the expectations of the people.

Is the person showing respect for the law and the office? To live within a lawful society, that may be a worthwhile thing to do.
In many cases, the magistrate may have done nothing to earn such respect. And in too many cases that I have seen, the magistrate will do nothing to earn such respect. One indication of a poor magistrate is when they find the need to demand respect for the office because their own actions do not warrant respect.
This may also be said of any law -- and how its enforced.

Or is the person pleading with the magistrate to prove him or herself honourable?
This is a reasonable plea.

Or is it really a demand for the magistrate to prove the court honourable?
When a lawful person submits themselves to the judgment before the law, the person is expressing a faith and belief in the law. They live that faith and belief day by day, in every aspect of their lives.
The person has every right to demand the court live up to the law.

a magistrate.
Originally uploaded by lyn and ubu.

And if the court takes on itself broad discretion, then the responsibility on that court increases. Magistrates who play games with the law are taking on themselves the responsibility of the brutality of law. They must avoid becoming criminal, not just. Discretion too broad is only inviting injustice and corruption.

It is a good principle to avoid criticism without offering alternatives or solutions. -- What can be done to return the faith in the courts and legal system?

The Australian courts must overcome:

• the general perception that "You do not go into court to tell the truth. The court is a place to lie." (I was ridiculed by friends for going into court and telling the truth.);
• the perception in the legal community and public that some judgments are the only result possible;
• the reality that the courts treat the litigants like idiots, and enforce that superior position by playing legalistic games with lives and property;
• the many examples that show people, their lives, property and health are merely amusements for the courts and lawyers.
  

The first principle that must be applied is that the courts must recognize their limitations. Courts are an adversarial process. There are many areas of human nature where an adversarial process is only juvenile and brutal.

Remove the legal system and courts from areas where they do not belong.

• A good example is the current Victorian policy of police filing Intervention Orders to force a family dispute into the courts where nothing will be accomplished other than creating more false statistics about domestic violence. If anything, this policy only increases the suffering of all involved except the police and the courts.
• Another example is to expect a magistrate to be omniscent. Magistrates are culpably incompetent of deciding who is the abuser in a relationship. The prejudice of the current system is so blatant, that magistrates ignore police records and other evidence in order to convict men of being abusers. (I witnessed this myself.)

If just this one principle were explored and enforced, a great deal of the time pressures on the courts would disappear. Simply, there are many areas where magistrates should not render judgments. They are incompetent and should acknowledge that incompetence.
Courts apply when there is a clear breach of the law, or contractual issues. Unless the courts intend for all human relations to become contractual?

A ludicrous example is the marriage vows, which often include the words, "..for better or worse.." -- These words are spoken in a public contract, witnessed by at least two signatories. Should the courts be called upon to enforce this contract? It would be a more reasonable application of the courts than to "err on the side of caution" certainly.

Courthouse Marriages
Originally uploaded by Kendrick Brinson.

Another principle to apply is that when a person's civil and human rights are curtailed, there must be a criminal conviction.
This does not mean a manufactured criminal conviction through an Intervention Order. It is hard to find a good word to describe how wrong it is to deny a person their civil and human rights on allegations alone. Prejudice is the best example I can think of.
A court which operates on prejudice is illegitimate. It does not deserve to be honoured in any way. Such judgments are criminal, and the people who render them should be convicted and treated as criminals. In old english law, the person who bears false witness was subjected to the punishment the accused would have suffered. Let the magistrates, lawyers, and any others who support this prejudice face similar punishment -- to lose their homes, freedom, and possessions -- and perhaps this prejudice would end.

This means that whenever the court intends to reduce a person's civil and human rights, there must be a crime defined by law. Hogging the remote, being disabled and unable to work, and yelling in an argument should not crimes before the law.
Will it amaze many to find that in Victoria and Australia, these are crimes for which a person may lose their home, their possessions, and their right to resolve their own problems?

Which follows to the next principle: The court must be able to explain its judgment to the participants, not just the pro forma of the law.
The magistrate of judge must take the time to explain to their judgment to the litigants clearly. Reading the summary of a judgment to the open court may please some and disappoint others, but neither will understand what has happened. If the magistrate takes the time to explain, respectfully, to both litigants why they have arrived at a judgment, at least there is an expression of respect for both parties, which would go a long ways towards earning the courts the respect they claim and most likely deserve.
This may also go a long ways towards quelling the catcalls of "the law is an ass" from all sides.

What's wrond with due process?
The intention of due process is to protect the citizen from the abuse of the law. It has reached a point where due process is only an excuse for not seeking a fair judgment. It has become an excuse for lazy magistrates and simply prejudice.
The other protections of fairness before the courts have been systematically removed, one by one:

• the concept of equal protections before the law -- is simply non-existant in the Victorian legal system at all levels;
• the concept of seeking best evidence -- has been removed in favor of judicial annoyance and prejudice, left to the magistrates' "discretion";
• the concept of habeaus corpus -- lost to the magistrates' "discretion";
• and many other basic principles which defend the honourable judgment of the courts.

If a court excludes enough evidence, any judgment is possible on any issue. It may not be reasonable to expect the court to be able to explain to litigants a judgment -- although that would be a good starting point, certainly -- but if a court can only explain its judgment in terms of due process and legalisms, there is good reason to expect a false or simply ridiculous judgment.
Perhaps the standard should be that a court an explain its judgment to a child?

Kids

Earlier today I asked a small group of 14-15 year old boys what they would do if a police(wo)man told them they had to appear in court because they were accused of something -- stealing or hitting someone. The first reaction, from two of them, was to "tell the copper to f**k off!" One bragged that he had, and told the story.
Another told a story of being convicted of dealing dope when he was 12 because an older kid next door tossed "some dope" over the fence. His mother and he wanted the police to check the bag for fingerprints; telling the police that his wouldn't be there. The police didn't bother. He was sentenced to 2 years, then set on probation.
They all said they expected to be convicted if accused.

What this random group of children says about the attitude of Australia towards the police and courts is moot. It can be argued many ways, in conjecture all of them possibly valid. The fact is that the child is expressing a socially accepted point of view: there is no reason to expect justice from the legal system.
What is says about the respect the people of Australia have for the courts and police is clear. No one expects justice before the courts.
I truly hate to say it, but from my experience, they are only right.

Now, why -- again -- are the judges and magistrates given the honorific of "Your honour"?