Judicial and Other Legal Professionals
Hear legal and other matters in courts and tribunals, interpret, analyse, administer and provide advice on family, intellectual property and migration law, and represent the state in the lower courts.
A full list at the magistrates court
You are a magistrate in a regional court with a full list of thirty matters, most with people who have no lawyer. It is 9:55am. The courtroom is full, the list is long and you have a full day of decisions ahead. Every person who stands in front of you is anxious, and some are angry.
Choose what you would do. Then see what happens. There are often good reasons for each choice.
Your Honour, I don't understand what I'm meant to say. I got a letter and came as soon as I could. I couldn't afford a lawyer. Can you just tell me what to do? I'm afraid I'll say something wrong.
Tell him that the court cannot help him and that he should have got legal advice before today
It is true that you cannot advise him, but he leaves frightened and confused. The way you explain the limits of your role matters as much as the limits themselves.
Tell him what the court will do today, in plain language, and when he can say his side
Mr Eze relaxes, tells his story clearly and feels he was treated with respect. A magistrate does not take sides, and can still make the process understandable.
Tell him what to say to have the best chance of winning, since he clearly cannot afford a lawyer
He is grateful, but the other side objects and the whole court sees that you have stepped out of your neutral role. A fair hearing depends on everyone seeing fairness.
Your Honour, my client has just received an important document from the other side this morning. I'd ask for the matter to be adjourned. I understand the list is full, but this affects the fairness of the hearing.
Grant the adjournment immediately without asking the other side
You protect one side, but the other side was not heard and feels it was unfair. Fairness means hearing from everyone before deciding.
Refuse the request to keep the list on time, because many others are waiting
The list runs smoothly, but the hearing goes ahead without time to read a key document. A decision made on a rushed hearing may be overturned, costing everyone more.
Ask the other side for their view, read the document briefly and decide whether an adjournment is fair
You hear both sides, find the delay is justified and set a close date. The list slips by twenty minutes, and the parties know they were heard.
A local reporter is in the public gallery for the next matter and wants to ask you a question afterward about how decisions are made. I thought you should know before you go in.
Tell Ewan the reporter can ask the court's communications office, and focus on the hearing
The court's office gives general information about how the court works, and the matter is heard on its merits. A magistrate speaks through decisions and reasons, not interviews.
Ask Ewan to remove the reporter, because the case is sensitive and the parties may be upset
You are right to be careful, but courts are generally open to the public. Excluding the reporter without a reason raises more questions than it settles.
Meet the reporter afterward and explain how you would decide the matter in front of you
Talking about a matter you are about to decide compromises your independence. The article reads as though the result was already decided.
How it went
The list finished a little late, with each person heard and each matter decided on its merits. Judicial and legal professionals work through disputes with patience and fairness, often when people are at their most stressed. It asks for calm, clarity and independence. Could you stay fair when everyone in the room is upset?
This is a simplified, fictional situation to help you explore. It is not professional instruction or a test of your ability.
Case study: The school holidays that two parents could not agree on
A fictional case set in a regional magistrates court and a family dispute resolution service in a fictional state.
The situation
Aroha was a family dispute resolution practitioner at a community legal centre. Two separated parents, Jo and Mark, came to a session with a long list of complaints about each other. They could not agree who would have their daughter, Mia, for the school holidays. Both were tired and angry, and each was ready to take the matter to court. Aroha had two hours, and a room that was getting colder by the minute.
What they did
Aroha started by setting a few ground rules and asking each parent what mattered most to Mia, not what they wanted for themselves. She kept the focus on the next school holidays, not the past years of conflict. When they began to argue, she called a short break and spoke to each separately. She did not take sides, and she helped them draft a simple written plan for this one holiday.
How it turned out
They agreed on a plan, and neither felt they had won. It held for the holidays, and they came back later to talk about the next term. Aroha knew some families return many times, and that a plan that works for one holiday is a good result.
What would you do?
- How would you stay fair when you felt more sympathy for one person?
- What would it be like to listen to people at their lowest moments?
- Why might focusing on the child, and not the adults, help people agree?