Courting the public

On the first day of October of each and every year, judges (in office and retired), magistrates, advocates, the President, the press, all pile into St John's Co-Cathedral to hear Mass and celebrate the start of another forensic year. This is followed by another ceremony in the law courts, presided over by the Chief Justice. It's a lot of ceremony for one day but then the legal profession likes to stand on ceremony. It's what we do best.

Some do it better than others. The judges, decked out in their togas, birettas and jabots, look upon the rest of us with that earnest look that we have come to expect of them when they're about to dole out the wisdom. There's a certain allure about the whole thing but I suppose that is true of most traditions. It's one of the few days in the year where you still feel some of what's left of the elitist glitz and glamour that was once the profession.

When it comes to professions, few are as hated as the legal one. Perhaps 'hate' is too strong a word, but there seems to be an across the board scepticism and mistrust of lawyers worldwide. I think it probably has a lot to do with the fact that the legal profession has a language unto itself and its members seem to derive a perverse pleasure in not letting the rest of the world in on it.

I distinctly remember a sociologist telling me this (there is certainly no love lost when it comes to sociologists and their regard for lawyers). He pointed out the very tiring way lawyers like to complicate life. They would rather say something in 100 words, even if they could probably say it just as effectively in 10. And the less the general public are able to decode, the better.

There's also a lot of rigmarole that comes with the territory. We bow to the presiding judge or magistrate. We ensure our sunglasses are tucked away into our handbags, our mobile phones switched off, that we are appropriately dressed. We lose the gum (or temporarily hide it under the roof of our mouths); we observe the same rules about crossing legs that we would do in church; we address the judiciary in the third person and we insist that all answers be likewise directed and addressed to them, regardless of who has asked the question. Yes, kowtowing is commonplace in the courts of law and advocates who practise there, have it down to a fine art.

People who are not familiar with the courts (and the majority are not), find it to be a pretty traumatic experience. In the same way that people who have never travelled before have a real and deeply rooted fear of airports. My aunt likes to tell the story of the time she and my uncle were subpoenaed as witnesses to testify in court. Some time before, they were unwitting witnesses to a reckless driving incident. So much time elapsed between the incident and the day the policeman showed up with the summons that she very nearly sent him on his way, confident that there had been some big mistake.

I'll cut to the chase and won't bore you with all the sittings, but suffice to say that it probably cost them more than the bus driver's comeuppance were he found guilty and fined. You see, these people took their court appearances very seriously. To ensure that they were there on time, they hired a taxi to drive them there and back. Each time their sitting was mysteriously adjourned to another date. It was only on the fourth visit that they actually testified - and that's a lot of taxi rides later.

My uncle is no stranger to the court room. A retired judge, the experience was hardly novel. My aunt (who is certainly more familiar than most with courtroom drama and procedure) was nervous. Now I have seen enough witnesses in court to know that for most it is an overwhelming experience, made even harder by the fact that the environment is chaotic, guaranteed to make the coolest customer wary. Cheese counters nowadays are more organised. Shouldn't every courtroom be equipped with its own computerised screen outside in sync with the goings on inside, identifying all parties involved? And why should 20 cases be called at 9 a.m. (multiply that by all the awli, that's easily 400 cases or more)? It just compounds the confusion. And while we're on the subject, shouldn't there be information desks, ushers, people who you can turn to for help? There's an abundance of security, but information staff are practically non-existent.

The Chief Justice appealed to judges and magistrates to treat the public courteously. It's not always fun to sit through hours and hours of testimony. And admittedly it does get tiring and repetitive especially because you're not always dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed.

But the dynamics in a courtroom are such to make even the brightest and sharpest stumble and fall. What may seem very obvious to a magistrate or judge is not always obvious to someone who has never set foot in court.

To mistake the witness stand for a kneeler may not happen every day, but it has happened. Most witnesses are clueless as to why they are there for starters; they suddenly find themselves thrown in a room teeming with people - a gazillion men in uniform (always scary), an intimidating looking, moody judge or magistrate, another 10 or 20 lawyers hogging the table... and they stutter and slip up. And the funny thing is that they don't really want to be there. They're only doing their duty; but they're made to pay for it. In more ways than one.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com