The Vardy/Rooney case, does the judge just mull it over for a bit & then decide? Like a one-man jury?

[Mangojuic]

I'm not familiar with this type of case. Does the judge chat to other colleagues before she makes her decision? Or does she have to stay on her own & decide? Does she have to justify her decision or only announce it? Is there such a thing as a split decision or is it always black & white? Many thanks

Oh good point Elaine, I'd forgotten that Nemesis came for Aitken much quicker than it came for Archer.

Beyond the financial cost, which Rooney can easily afford, it doesn't matter if she wins. All anyone will remember is Vardy's nasty texts and all the missing evidence. Anyone Vardy wants to impress or get close to in the future will have seen how she conducts herself. Would you ever trust her with anything you didn't want gossiped about? That's a win for Rooney.If it goes against Rooney, most ordinary people will think it unfair because it's hard to prove a case with evidence in the sea!

But from Vardy's POV it's made her properly (in)famous. That kind of memorable publicity is money in the bank, and will get her nailed into the C-list for decades after most of her contemporaries are forgotten. And it's grotty, but not the kind of thing that would actually get you cancelled. M&S aren't going to hire her to front a knitwear range, but if Carphone Warehouse hire her for a "need a new phone in a hurry?" campaign, nobody's going to write letters of shocked complaint like they would if they hired Heard or Depp.

True. But I think there are people that Vardy would want to be respected by and socialise with, who won't give her the time of day having seen her texts. If you were another wag would you want her in your house, and knowing your personal business?

@PortiaFimbriata - yes 14 years until Archer got his comeuppance! Although I’d forgotten it took 2 years post the libel collapse before the criminal case against Aitken! Did no one warn Vardy? (If so then thank you 😉!).

Doh! I should have said I wouldn’t be confident of a win if I was Vardy! I agree with the view, whatever the result Rooney has ‘won’!

I was just coming to quote that.

I love how she worked it into the article.

i don’t think the courts should be jammed up with these frivolous cases. Absolute nonsense. The newspapers are as bad, reporting in this nonsense as if it matters.

Oh but madame, it's given us hours of entertainment. And it's nice to see a mean girl get her comeuppance!

Has there been any outcome? Either I’ve missed it or it’s taking ages.

No, the judge hasn't handed down judgement yet, nor do we yet have a date when that will happen.

Is there a time limit then? Could she take six months to decide?

No time limit. The judge can take as long as she needs to review the evidence and write her judgement. I would be surprised if it takes as long as 6 months, however.

Ah great, thanks. So why is this taking longer? Is it because it’s not a common event, it’s unusual therefore she’s got to look up different laws or something? @prh47bridge

I wouldn't describe this as "taking longer". The case finished two months ago. That isn't slow for a reserved judgement.

Libel trials happen regularly (roughly 3 a week), although most of them are not as high profile as this one. As far as I am aware, neither side tried to argue obscure points of law, so the judge doesn't need to look up any laws. It takes this long because the judge has to:

• review all the evidence in the trial bundle. I don't know how big the bundle is, but Rooney's witness statement runs to 61 pages. There would also be witness statements from Vardy, Watt and others, along with all the documentary evidence. That is a lot of evidence to review.
• review the evidence given in the hearing.
• arrive at her decision.
• write a detailed judgement giving her decision and explaining it in details, with reference to the evidence and, where appropriate, to precedents set in other cases. It isn't enough to simply say, "I've decided that X wins and award damages of Y". She has to review the evidence and set out in detail how she arrived at her decision. If she does not do so, her judgement will be open to appeal.

Taking longer? It’s perfectly normal to wait months for a detailed judgment. They take a lot of time to write and perfect - with the judge always conscious that every word may later be scrutinised by an appeal court.

The judge is not looking up the law - that will have been covered in detail in submissions (written and oral) from the parties. She doesn’t have a deadline, but nowadays civil judges are expected to get most judgments out within three months or risk rapped knuckles from their superiors. This is hard to achieve, as they are busy hearing new cases without the luxury of judgment-writing time being routinely provided in their schedule. Judicial assistants (usually very clever junior barristers taking time out from their early practices) do take on some of the drafting burden nowadays, but at this time of year there is huge pressure to get as much as possible out and finished by the close of the legal year on 29 July. There will be an enormous amount of activity going on behind the scenes.

The judgement from Mrs Justice Steyn in the Cadwalladr libel case was recently released (5 months after the trial finished). It’s a very detailed (and important case) and runs to 117 pages. I’d be very impressed if she releases the Vardy judgement by the 29th July!

It's gone on so long, I had forgotten about it!

As this illustrates, once the hearing is over the judge isn't able to work full time on the judgement. She will still be writing judgements from previous cases and hearing new cases.

I hadn't forgotten. I'm really looking forward to hearing the verdict.

The wait for the verdict is almost over. Midday tomorrow (Friday).

I'm a solicitor. My last trial ended in a November. It was April when we got the judgment. It's perfectly normal for judgments to take months to be handed down. Some colleagues have waited far longer!

Really??

Yes, really! 🙂