Chapter I. Duties of Judges

A JUDGE is defined to be a public person appointed by lawful authority to apply the laws to the settling of disputes between litigants and to the punishment of criminals.

He is said to be a public person because he is appointed by public authority, not chosen like an arbitrator by the litigants themselves, and, moreover, he is guided in his official capacity not by his private knowledge and ideas but by the evidence given in the case and by the laws which he administers. Case law, or judge-made law, in English jurisprudence, is no exception to this rule, for it is but the authentic interpretation and application of the common and statute law to concrete cases made in court by the judges of the superior courts.

A cause in which the private rights of the litigants are to be adjudicated upon is called a civil case or action; if the cause is one in which an offender is tried for the commission of a crime it is called a criminal case or action.

By his very position and the nature of his office a judge is bound to pass a just sentence according to law in the cases brought before him, and so he must possess the requisite qualifications for this and set about it in the right manner, He must have a competent knowledge of the law which is to be his guide and which he is called upon to apply, and he must use at least ordinary diligence to get at the merits of the case before him. He must not allow his judgement to be influenced by such improper motives as fear or favour; his sentence must be dictated by a sense of even-handed justice. He must observe the rules of judicial procedure applicable to the case, and he must have the requisite authority or jurisdiction for dealing with it.

If in any of these points the judge is culpably at fault, he sins against justice and is bound to make good the damage which he causes. Moreover, inasmuch as judges ordinarily take an oath of office, he will also sin against the sanctity of his oath. A judge who should allow himself to be bribed to give an unjust sentence would not only be bound in conscience to repair the injustice done, but he would be liable to severe punishment for his offence. Even if he were to take a bribe for delivering a just sentence, he is bound in conscience to restore what he received. For, as his office binds him in justice to give sentence according to the merits of the case, such a service is no ground for special reward or-payment, nor a just title for retaining a special reward or payment if he has received any.

The judge, as we have seen, must pass sentence according to the evidence before the court, not according to his own private knowledge or views. He may know privately that an accused man is guilty, but he must not condemn him unless his guilt has been proved by the evidence. But what if the judge knows for certain that an accused man is innocent, and yet, according to the evidence available, he has been proved guilty? In such a case as this the judge must, of course, use all the means in his power to bring out the innocence of the accused party, or remit the case to another court, But supposing that he has done all in his power to avoid condemning the innocent man, and nevertheless the jury have found him guilty, and by law it only remains for the judge to pass sentence according to the verdict. Is he allowed to do so?

This question was disputed among theologians. Some, with St Thomas, taught that he might condemn the innocent man, for the witnesses were then guilty of injustice, not the judge, who did his duty in passing sentence according to law. Others denied that this is lawful, for to condemn the innocent, especially if there is question of a death sentence, is intrinsically wrong. Others distinguished, and taught that it is indeed unlawful to condemn an innocent man to death even when, by judicial process, he has been proved to all appearances guilty, but that when there is question of a fine or imprisonment which may be suffered without sin, the judge may pass sentence according to the law, for this is for the public good. Practically, therefore, according to the principles of English jurisprudence the judge may lawfully pass sentence even of death in such a case, but he is bound afterward, by making representations to the proper authority, to do what he can to clear the innocent party.

When the evidence in a criminal trial is not conclusive, the defendant must not be condemned, for a man is presumed to be innocent until he has been proved conclusively to be guilty.

In a civil action, when the rights of the parties are not certain, but only probable, the judge is bound to adjudicate in favour of him who has the more probable right, taking into account possession and all the other circumstances in the case.

If there is equal probability on either side, the parties should come to a compromise, or, as some hold, the judge may decide in favour of either party.

The judge is bound to pass sentence according to law, for this is presumed to be just. It may, however, happen that particular laws are unjust, as when the seal of confession is not respected or divorce is permitted. May a Catholic judge pass sentence in accordance with such laws as these ¹ The judge may sometimes obtain permission to pass sentence according to a law which is unjust merely because it is against the laws and rights of the Church. In order to make the position of Catholic judges tenable the Church will sometimes cede her rights in such cases or grant jurisdiction to try a case which of itself belongs to the ecclesiastical courts.

Thus Cardinal Gasparri deduces from a decree of the Holy Office, December 19, 1860, that jurisdiction has been granted to judges in England to try cases where there is question of judicial separation of married people.

If the law commands what is contrary to the natural or divine law—as, for example, to give evidence as to what has been declared in confession—it is intrinsically wrong to obey such a law, and no Catholic judge may apply it.

If the unjust law only imposes a fine or imprisonment, some theologians maintain that even then it may not be applied by a Catholic judge. Others, however, hold that for grave reason—as, for example, if no Catholic could otherwise accept the office of judge—sentence may be passed according to such a law. The person unjustly condemned must patiently submit for the public good, especially as he would not escape even if Catholic judges refused to execute the law.

The unjust sentence of a judge imposes no obligation in conscience, and of course the aggrieved party may have recourse to all available remedies which the law allows for redress. If none is available the public good will usually require patient submission to the wrong. If there is a doubt about the justice of a sentence, presumption favours the judge, and obedience must be yielded, as in the case of a just sentence, which has the force of the law which it applies.

¹ Gasparri, De Matrim. 2, n. 1165.

What has been said concerning the moral obligations of judges is applicable in due proportion to those who have similar functions, such as arbitrators, referees, and jurymen. An arbitrator differs from a judge in that he is chosen by the parties to the dispute to settle their claims. If the submission to arbitration and the decision of the arbitrator be in writing, the sentence is final, and will be upheld by English courts unless it is evidently corrupt or obtained by unlawful means.¹

Referees are officials or experts to whom the-court entrusts some special question for inquiry or decision, and sometimes the cause itself, if it be complicated and not suitable for trial in the ordinary way. They are bound to act according to the terms of their commission and the rules drawn up for their guidance, ‘The report or award of a referee, unless set aside by the court, has the force of a jury’s verdict.

A jury is a body of men selected and sworn to inquire into certain matters of fact, and to declare the truth upon evidence to be laid before them. They are therefore bound to form the best judgement in their power as to the facts of the case laid before them, and truthfully and fearlessly to give their verdict. If any one of them has any private knowledge of the facts of the case, he is not precluded from communicating it to the others, and he should do this if justice or charity require it.

¹ Cf. Can. 1930.