To have a problem with the Trial Judge in the Pistorious case

[Charliebitmyfinger]

I think it has been hugely irritating to listen to her summing up today. She has stumbled over words quite a lot and been quite longwinded in the issues of the lesser Firearm charges OP was accused of, I actually fell asleep(not kidding). I woke up an she was still droning on about the Restaurant incident. Then... She gave the verdict we have all been waiting for.... Culpable Homicide. But that part was so brief one could almost have missed it. Surely she could have prepared her statement last night and could have been a little more polished or does the Court hand her the statement as the session started this morning? Excuse my ignorance of The SA Courts. I also do not understand her reason behind extending OP's bail. I am not questioning her judgement as that could be a separate thread. I just think her delivery has been fairly clumsy today..

Charliebitmyfinger I agree that it would help if more context were given about ALL legal stories in the press, not just the ones from South Africa. On the very few occasions when my trials have been reported, the summary given is virtually unrecognisable to someone who heard the whole case. I do think this must give a very bad impression of legal trials to people not present in the courtroom. I'm not sure how to get round it, though, because the press can't report every single thing that was said and in a summary, inevitably, crucial points of evidence/law that change the whole picture will be missed.

What really gets on my nerves, however, is when the media just gets the law plain wrong. I've heard this happen a number of times (and bear in mind that I only specialise in 2 areas of law, so it must happen a lot more often than I recognise!). Really, it isn't hard to contact an expert to give correct legal background on an important story. Some of the things I hear on the Today programme make me cringe.

here have I made any comment re her linguistic skills??
You're complaining that her verbal delivery was irritating, that she 'stumbled' over words. As other people have pointed out, that does happen, but her spoken fluency and accent, and how easy it is to follow, will absolutely be influenced by the fact that English is not her first language.

WelshWabbit Db is a Barrister and I have heard him say exactly what you have said re the Today programme

When I said stumble (ok I should have said mis read her own words from the sheets she was reading) perhaps I should have re-phrased it and "stumble" was a clumsy word. My Dh says he"stumbles" his words when he reads aloud (because he reads to fast). But I was NOT commenting on her English skills

@Nancy66 I heard about that too, I am just looking it up (re the OJ Judge)

NotNew Just read that article and thank you for the steer. The writer says that the judge acquitted herself well which somehow I don't think anyone who was not a black woman would dare write and if anyone else did the Grauniad would not print it.

Yabu yes it was very long winded but she has to deliver the legal jargon she did stumble but she is human and was reading it from her notes and she has to speak slowly and clearly so she is understood sorry you were not entertained with snappy delivery though

Charlie - it was the OJ judge but I can't find the clip of him sobbing like a toddler.

And maybe she doesn't usually speak English

Her English was perfectly fine, although her accent is an unusual one for English ears, and where Law Latin was used some of the vowels took a bit of recognising.

The thing with a judgment, whether it be 2 minutes in the County Court or 2 days as in this case, is it has to be spot on. Every bit of reasoning has have the previous decision referenced correctly. This is rocket science as applied to language and logic. I watched from the viewpoint of a lower 2nd LL.B, and it was very well done.

And in no way entertainment.

Agree with Disgrace entirely.

Maybe she should have said 'We find the defendant.......' Long Eastenders style pause.... 'NOT GUILTY of murder' and just left it at that so people watching at home would be entertained. But then there'd probably be grounds for an appeal as the reasons why wouldn't have been made clear and Reeva's family would have to sit through the whole thing again. But as long as it made good entertainment why not?
I think the judge did a good job throughout and she was reading for a day and a bit! I'm sure if any of us were reading out loud we'd stumble over words and have to re-read things if we were doing it for that long!