On the subject of the assessors & testimony - I spoke to a German Judge about this as I was interested in what training if any, the Judges/Assessors receive in assessing witnesses.
As I suspected, the answer appears to be none. The Judge relies on their experience.
This concerned me for two reasons.
First, unlike many High Court Judges I know, Masipa did not have a 25+ year career as Barrister in the white hot arena of trials. She does not have experience in examining witnesses, she was not a former crown prosecutor, nor did she make silk and lead cases at the highest level. Indeed by international standards she is quite poorly qualified for a case of this nature, and especially her expertise is significantly inferior to both counsel. How you end up with a judge on the bench of the High Court conducting huge criminal trials with zero relevant experience is beyond me.
Secondly the two assessors may over rule the Judge on factual questions. The view of the Judge I spoke to is that assessors may be quite naive in regard to testimony - especially as they have no breadth of experience in the handling of court evidence. Or maybe its even their first case.
So is it any wonder such a poorly qualified team delivered:
1. poor trial management
2. bizarre findings
3. astonishingly poor technical quality of judgment
As I suspected, the answer appears to be none. The Judge relies on their experience.
This concerned me for two reasons.
First, unlike many High Court Judges I know, Masipa did not have a 25+ year career as Barrister in the white hot arena of trials. She does not have experience in examining witnesses, she was not a former crown prosecutor, nor did she make silk and lead cases at the highest level. Indeed by international standards she is quite poorly qualified for a case of this nature, and especially her expertise is significantly inferior to both counsel. How you end up with a judge on the bench of the High Court conducting huge criminal trials with zero relevant experience is beyond me.
Secondly the two assessors may over rule the Judge on factual questions. The view of the Judge I spoke to is that assessors may be quite naive in regard to testimony - especially as they have no breadth of experience in the handling of court evidence. Or maybe its even their first case.
So is it any wonder such a poorly qualified team delivered:
1. poor trial management
2. bizarre findings
3. astonishingly poor technical quality of judgment