by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 30.
Nov. 2010. – 10:55:38
Case Management Hearings do what it says on the box. I was surprised therefore a couple of months ago when I suggested from the middle chair to our L/A that a CMH would seem to be appropriate in the rather complicated matter of which we had just heard the history of its previous five listings to be told that they were no longer being listed except in DV matters. There are many twists and turns in recommended procedures that are picked up in such a fashion and as far as I was concerned that was that. Roll on to earlier this month sitting on another far from straightforward [non DV] case that had had a long history. Our [different] L/A half turned to us and said that it would seem sensible sir to have a CMH a week prior to the new trial date. It was not the time to question him so of course we concurred.
Skip forward to the post court review and put forward the obvious question to be told that a CMH should be listed where it would help to ensure a trial would go ahead if there were any known obstacles or where there were certain indications that it would facilitate matters in a predictable way. In short a CMH was still a formidable weapon in the court`s armoury to allow matters to be pushed forward at every opportunity. The opinion of the other L/A was greeted with a shrug. Just a little more confusion and an example where a bench sometimes must use its collective common sense even it is at odds with the advice given.
No comments:
Post a Comment