In Focus Risk


have been if only their views over Brexit had prevailed. As with messy and stressful divorces, in


issues relating to post-Brexit trade and tariffs, it could take up to a decade or more before irreconcilable views are discussed in a more civilised and restrained manner, not only for those in Parliament but also within the public at large.


Conflicting evidence In writing this piece, I was reminded of a particular trial where a sitting judge was faced with a long and difficult hearing (scheduled for two days) on whether or not Dad should be allowed contact with his son, with reams of conflicting word-processed evidence put before the court. However, at the start of the hearing, the


judge summoned both barristers to approach the bench, and in what was apparently a loud whisper (clearly audible to anyone sitting nearby), His Honour firmly indicated in rather plain English that (a) he did not wish to hear the case, that (b) he did not want to read through piles of what he felt would be opposing ‘hate’ allegations from both parents, and that (c) in any event, he would have serious difficulty in formulating an opinion one way or the other. He then said that he would allow them two and a half hours to arrange, with their


December 2018


respective clients, a suitable compromise over contact while strongly hinting that if they failed to do so, he would keep each of them in mind when they appeared before him in other matters, which, from the look on their faces did not go down well with either. As luck would have it, the two learned


lawyers, after a good deal of hectic toing and froing between discussions with their respective clients, were able to come to an agreement over contact, including arrangements over Christmas, birthdays, and holidays. When the court reconvened, one of them


stood up and graciously thanked His Honour for allowing them the time to


resolve the issues between the parents, before handing him what looked like the back of a large envelope, listing agreement over the conditions for contact. After reading it, he smiled and commented


he was satisfied with what it contained, and would immediately make out an order to that effect. Then – and by what appeared to be a


subliminal cue – the court usher immediately announced “all rise”, and the judge quickly disappeared through a side door while we all obediently stood in silence until he was out of sight. It was not long afterwards that, outside


the court, I observed the parents speaking to one other, albeit with their lawyers standing by, sorting out the practical details of His Honour's order.


As with messy and stressful divorces, in issues relating to post- Brexit trade and tariffs, it could take up to a decade or more before irreconcilable views are discussed in a more civilised and restrained manner


www.CCRMagazine.com


Conclusion I never found out if the contact proved successful or not, but I suspect it had a better chance than if the full hearing had gone ahead and dragged on for two days. Perhaps His Honour's approach and


expertise in matters of divorce should have been available to the host of negotiators, both political and otherwise, when the talks on Brexit began. Then we might have been much less


uncertain about all our futures and in much less time as well. CCR


41


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52