M
completeness of his story. It is entrusted to the hands of counsel in the confidence that it will be used with discretion (see the remarks of Viscount Sankey in Mechanical and General Inventions Co. v. Austin Motor Co. (1935) A.C. at page 359). When this confidence is abused and counsel embarks on cross-examination which is calculated embarrass and offend, then it may amount to professional misconduct.
to
Further, counsel should always bear in mind the interests. of the public resorting to the law for settlement of its disputes. Whilst rules of evidence and procedure are necessary for the efficient administration of justice, they are nothing more than the means by which the real issues are ultimately to be resolved: accordingly, lengthy discussion on these matters in Court is almost always an indication that counsel has failed in his primary duty to the Court.
In criticizing the conduct of the Bar as I have done above, I cannot wholly exempt the Bench from blame. All too often the Court is prepared to allow the introduction of irrelevant issues and to entertain lengthy submissions which do not go to the matters in dispute. This is to give a semblance of justice whilst in fact ignoring its substance-- which is to resolve disputes in a manner which the public can readily appreciate and understand. In the realm of commerce in particular is this criticism most keenly felt. Whilst the legal procedure might ultimately ensure that justice according to the law is done, the process is often too elaborate and irksome to serve the needs of the commercial community. To take but one example: for the businessman an Airways Bill is invariably treated as sufficient proof that the goods named therein have been sent by air freight. Yet if the matter were not admitted, and strict proof became necessary in Court, production of the Airways Bill relating to the goods
3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.