Thursday, November 6th, 2008...8:48 pm
Sleeping judge = miscarriage of justice
Sleeping judge Ian Dodd ‘miscarriage of justice’: High Court
buy Cheech & Chong’s Next Movie Soggy Bottom, U.S.A. psp The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning film
A PAIR of accused drug traffickers could not have received a fair trial because a judge fell asleep for up to 20 minutes at a time during their trial, the High Court has ruled.
…
Evidence from a hearing of the NSW Criminal Appeal Court indicated Judge Dodd appeared to sleep for periods of up to 20 minutes at a time, sometimes accompanied by snoring.His sleep periods became longer as the trial proceeded with members of the jury visibly distracted and, at times, amused. Court officials sometimes loudly dropped documents in a bid to wake the snoring judge.
Cesan, in his appeal evidence, said the judge’s snoring was disruptive when he was being cross-examined.
Crown prosecutor Geoffrey Bellew swore an affidavit referring to occasions on which the judge appeared to be asleep.
The High Court unanimously ruled Judge Dodd did not exercise supervision of the trial as required by law and, as a result, the jury was distracted.
Chief Justice Robert French said a judge must be seen to be upholding this duty.
“Where the judge is noticeably and repeatedly asleep or inattentive during the trial, there can be a miscarriage of justice,” he said.
“The trial in this case was so flawed. There was a miscarriage of justice. It could not be said that the miscarriage was not substantial.”
The court ruled the men should be retried.
Hilarious. It seems you can get a chance at a do over even if your lawyer is incompetent, as long as he’s boring.
3 Comments
November 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I’m surprised they didn’t make more direct effects at waking the judge up — like poking him like we poke Chiqui in class.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Poking is proven to be not an effective method of waking people up; it may create for the judge a sense of shock and anxiety on the event of waking up and may impede on his judging abilities. You should let him drift in and out peacefully so that the boringness of law can be best managed.
Wait a sec, isn’t that like assault or something, can you appreciate immediate physical harm when your asleep?
November 7th, 2008 at 2:59 am
It wouldn’t be battery (in tort) if poking fell within “a general exception embracing all physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life” (Collins v Wilcock). There can’t possibly be assault (in the tortious sense) if he’s asleep?
Leave a Reply