An iron grip...

This week has been an interesting one. I have been at a trial which was scheduled to last 3 days. As is often the way, in the cold light of day, once it has actually got started, the three days look like they could slip away in the blink of an eye. Not, however, if you have a judge with an iron grip on the progress of the proceedings. This is, of course, exactly what the civil procedure reforms envisaged. Cases managed by judges rather than the parties. Absolutely right too. The old system allowed far too much scope for abuse of the system, particularly those who could afford to string it out at the expense of those who could not afford it, essentially bullying their opponent into submission, destitution, or both. But there was something about this new, efficient method of delivering justice which didn't quite leave me feeing altogether comfortable...

It was necessary for the judge to prevent the parties from indulging in every little fishing exercise and foray into the irrelevant which may have taken their fancy. Of course it was. It is pointless allowing parties to take days to put their case when it can be done in hours. The problem is, where do you draw the line? The judge in this case was completely pre-occupied with time. "How long is your cross examination of witness X going to take Mr Y". "Oh, about 3 hours My Lord". Some 2 hours and 50 minutes later," you've got 10 minutes left Mr Y". Commendable in many ways. It's the antithesis of everything that was wrong with the old system. But too firm a grip could actually have the opposite effect.

Whilst it was refreshing to see the judge being actively involved in making sure that the case did not run over, inevitably causing more misery to those waiting in the wings for their day in court, one wonders whether over zealous case management might not raise issues under Art 6 ECHR, and if so, where that line is drawn.