Principle Versus Practice in the Pursuit of Justice

 

A recent reflection in LinkedIn argued that judges must resist the temptation to mediate sentiment or emotion, and instead ground their determinations strictly in facts, admissible evidence, and applicable law. It warned that any departure from these fundamentals risks perverting justice and rendering advocates redundant.

 

One recent reflection captured this principle well, and I reproduce it here in full before turning to the case I am handling:

In contemporary adjudication, there is an increasing tendency for judges to assert their own sense of justice, often reflecting a perceived role as mediators of the emotions, sentiments, or aspirations of the litigants, or of particular parties before them. Such an approach risks dangerously encroaching upon a perversion of justice. Judicial determinations must be grounded strictly in the facts, the admissible evidence, and the applicable law. Any departure from these fundamentals undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process and, ultimately, risks rendering the role of legal advocates redundant or obsolete.

 

I agree with the principle. Justice must rest on truth, not sentiment. But in a case I am handling, I see how easily such principles can be betrayed in practice. The defense tendered a sales report claiming that a man purchased a house in 2022. The difficulty is undeniable: the man passed away in 2016. A deceased person cannot buy property six years after his death.

 

This is not a matter of interpretation or fairness—it is a matter of fact. To present such a document as evidence erodes the very foundation upon which justice must rest. Words about fidelity to fact and law ring hollow if the practice of advocacy tolerates impossibilities dressed up as evidence.

 

I have asked whether the party instructing the defense actually authorized reliance on this report. If they did not, responsibility for presenting a falsehood lies squarely with counsel. If they did, then both client and counsel are implicated in advancing a defense that conflicts with reality.

 

Justice is not perverted when judges weigh human sentiment; it is perverted when facts are distorted, when impossibilities are advanced as evidence, and when advocates forget that their credibility rests on truth.

 

Principle without practice is rhetoric. Practice without principle is deception. The integrity of adjudication demands both.