Judicial Demeanour

1518 Words4 Pages

Introduction
Judicial demeanour and court architecture are fundamental aspects of criminal procedure. In observing judicial demeanour, two demeanours were displayed: detachment and engagement. Although emphasise must be placed on detachment in order to maintain formal institutional legitimacy, value must also be placed on engagement, which reinforces the fair treatment notion of legitimacy. Thus, this paper argues that a hybrid of these judicial demeanours, intertwined with the core legal value of impartiality is required to legitimately exercise judicial authority. Furthermore, this paper argues that the spatial dimensions of the courtroom are a significant part of its communicative context. These spatial dimensions ranged from promoting a …show more content…

Design philosophy, indicates that court architecture should provide a ‘welcoming presence’, which indicates ‘openness and accessibility.’ Thus, the purpose of court design is to communicate the significance of the rule of law, but not to intimidate. However it is palpable that in many cases, courtroom structure serves as a method of ‘reinforcing authority and hierarchy.’ The magistrate remained at a raised bench at the end of the courtroom and highly visible. Any documents handed to the magistrate were provided through the clerk. Lawyers and other participants stood when addressing or when spoken to by the magistrate. Formal courtesy, and the ideology of justice were played up in the elaborate courtrooms, dress and rigid rules of ceremony. These structures and formalities all served to emphasise the literal and metaphoric separation between the magistrate and other participants, especially the …show more content…

Courtroom architecture and procedure in the District Court highlights a clear subordination between different parties. Unlike the ‘flattened’ nature of the Local Courts architecture, the judge seemed to be positioned high above the rest of the room, implicitly inserting an ‘entitlement of public authority to be obeyed.’ This alienated people ‘lower’ in the courtroom hierarchy. This was particularly evident in R v El Hares. In this case the defendant, unable to speak fluent English, was placed in the dock approximately ten meters from the judge and isolated from his legal representation. Due to this distance and the English deficiencies of the defendant, he talked to the Judge via his lawyer. Thus courtroom architecture resulted in the defendant being isolated, dehumanised and neglected as a part of their court experience. This architectural aspect served to emphasize the literal and metaphoric separation between the magistrate and the defendant. The spatial dimensions of the District Court created a power dynamic that the public is submissive to the judge. This defied themes and expectations for courtroom

Open Document