How does judicial writing differ from courtroom judgments?

Question

Accepted Answer

Judicial Writing Offers Scholarly Exploration Beyond Formal Judgments

Judicial writing, particularly in scholarly publications, provides a distinct avenue for judges to explore legal concepts and engage in intellectual reflection that differs significantly from the constraints of formal courtroom judgments. While judgments are strictly bound by the specific facts of a case and established legal precedent, scholarly articles allow for broader discussions and personal insights into the law. This is crucial because judges are precluded from publicly defending their decisions, making written grounds and subsequent scholarly works essential for academic scrutiny and public understanding.
Grounds of Judgment Crucial for Scrutiny

The Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tan Sri Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, highlighted that the significance of a judicial decision lies not only in the outcome but also in the reasoning process. Judges are expected to meticulously document their grounds of judgment, as these written explanations become the primary basis for review and criticism. Since judges cannot publicly debate or defend their rulings against public commentary, the clarity and depth of their written grounds are paramount for scholarly and academic analysis, ensuring accountability and transparency within the judicial system.
Scholarly Articles Enable Broader Legal Discourse

Federal Court judge Tan Sri Idrus Harun noted that the Malaysian Judiciary actively encourages judges to contribute to scholarship, recognising that their role extends beyond the courtroom. Writing academic articles is seen as a valuable form of intellectual self-reflection and a continuous learning process for judges. This contrasts with the traditional judicial role, which demands impersonality and the avoidance of personal views in legal rulings, thereby limiting opportunities for judges to integrate their subjective learning or engage in self-criticism within formal judgments.
Distinct Audiences and Purposes

The Journal of the Malaysian Judiciary, published biennially, exemplifies this scholarly pursuit. It features articles contributed by sitting judges that offer fresh perspectives on diverse legal subjects, including constitutional law, criminal law, and company law. Unlike judgments, which are legally binding and addressed to the parties involved in a specific dispute, these journal articles are intended for a wider audience of legal professionals, academics, and the public interested in legal scholarship. This allows judges to express their views more freely, exploring broader legal theories and engaging in intellectual discourse without the strict confines of case-specific legal arguments.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How does judicial writing differ from courtroom judgments?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends