Before the judge are brought those of us who are thought to have transgressed the bounds set by law governing equally the behaviour of all citizens in the country. The sworn duty of the judge is to fairly hear the facts, with a thirst for the truth, a keen tooth against tampering, and a sharp eye to see that the rights of the accused are respected and upheld. The judge is empowered to keep check on the activities of those who detain the accused, alert to any abuse taking place.

The public prosecutors must bring their charge with due diligence before the judge, as delay infringes on the right of the accused to either be free of the stigma or to pay the price. In the interests of fairness and justice the accused must be released from detention once his plea is entered. If a plea of guilty is entered, then the sentence must be pronounced in a reasonable time, so the fine or penal servitude can begin. A guilty plea removes a right to bail, and the sentence begins immediately.

A plea of not guilty carries with it the right to reasonable bail. Where the amount of bail is unreasonably high, or denied altogether, a proof that there is sufficient threat to the citizenry must be shown to outweigh the inherent rights of the prisoner to freedom while awaiting trial. Judges may be rightly suspicious when a prisoner is kept without any charges brought. Any deviation from the rules of procedure to be followed by the police raises the spectre that the law is being abused for political ends or that a malicious prosecution is in process.

The judge serves as conscience to the state, and oversees the administration of the law, so the rights of all are protected from the depravations of demented demagogues determined to display dominance in matters of democratic government. It is the judge who is looked to by the people to safeguard their basic rights, and it is his sworn duty to be vigilant and vigorous in this role.

If it appears that the police are over-zealous in maintaining peace and order, then the people may apply for redress from the judge. Where there is brutality and inhumane conduct on the part of the police, it is the judge who is the first officer who can offer remedy. The judge is the mentor of the police, continually directing them in the proper discharge of their duties. When they fail in proper conduct, the judge may immediately discharge the prisoner to remove the accused from further mistreatment at the hands of the police. Only where such release threatens the safety of other citizens should further detention be required. It is the exercise of this power to release which prompts the police to respect the dignity and person of all citizens.

The manner in which charges are brought by the public prosecutor in a criminal matter must follow established rules of procedure. The initial police investigation outlines in general the specific codes which are applicable, and further details to improve the chances of attaining a guilty verdict may be sought in subsequent study of the circumstances.

The Attorney-General is given discretion to examine the match between the criminal codes and the actions of the accused. He then is allowed by society to either bring a court action against the accused, or dismiss the charges as not sufficiently established or provable. His decision is not solely based on whether he thinks the accused has acted criminally against the established code of the state, but is also weighed against the probability of getting a conviction based on the evidence. Where the offence is minor, and the expense to the state is great, in both time and resources, the accused may be freed pending further developments.

An innocent party will always deny the allegations made, and a plea of innocence is to be routinely expected. The police must not be allowed to prevail in back room attempts to coerce confessions under conditions of cruelty and duress. Any confession or statement not personally confirmed in open court is suspect. But the Attorney-General, using the great powers to prosecute using the public purse, may offer the innocent person a reduced charge and a small fine for a plea of guilty. This is backed by the threat of a malicious prosecution and a long period of detention obtained through tainted evidence and perjury. Such behaviour is to be condemned.

It is at this early stage that the judge must be observant, and enquire carefully into the circumstances surrounding the entry of a plea. This is especially true when the plea is changed suddenly in the middle of the proceedings. Only the wisest of judges can always discern when the power of the state is being misused. But the question must always be present in the mind of the judge. The rights of the people are at stake, and a pattern of prosecutorial abuse must not be allowed to establish itself.

The judge should immediately suspect that the rights of the accused are in jeopardy when there is delay in the delineation of the charges. A clumsy beginning is prelude to further injustice. The judge must be firm in his insistence that the charges be specifically prepared and submitted for his approval. Should the defence point out that the charges are not appropriate, the judge must investigate, and if the objection is sustained then the accused is acquitted. There must be no fishing about in the tackle box of the law for a new hook upon which the fish may be impaled. The judge must side with the defense, upholding the primary rule of the law, which states that all are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof is always upon the prosecution. It must never be allowed to shift to the defence.

The judge is not expected to be perfectly neutral at all times in hearing matters brought before the bench. The public expects the judge to intervene on the side of the defence to provide necessary protection of the rights of the accused. The prosecution must always be on notice that no trespass on the basic rights of the accused will be tolerated. It is the duty of the judge to chastise the prosecution if their behaviour exceeds proper limits in an honest presentation of the facts.

The capable judge then gives every appearance of maintaining balance in protecting both the public interest in punishing criminal behaviour and respecting the basic right of the accused to a fair and speedy trial. He must never be seen to aid in any way the prosecution in bringing a conviction against the accused. He must present to the public a picture of perfect posture in protecting the law itself from taint or stain. If any judge finds difficulty in the necessary display of decorum and dignity during the determination of the facts, then it is appropriate that the trial be recessed so this enormous error can be redressed. The judge may need to be recused.

It is only necessary that defence attorneys make a claim of bias on the part of the judge to bring the proceeding to an end until this allegation is resolved. No citizen should be tried before a judge who gives every appearance of preferring a conviction in advance of hearing the defence to be offered by the accused. The public vests great power in the judge that he may maintain a courtroom environment conducive to the proper administration of justice. The judge has authority to find contempt where any officer of the court disturbs the decorum.

The contempt power is greatest when unused. Where it is brought out in threat, and gives the appearance of abridging the rights of the accused through intimidation of his legal representative, it is the judge who comes under the close scrutiny of the public. In the course of a long trial there will be many objections on various matters of procedure, and on each and every one of these the judge must rule without favor, else he is in error. Every ruling is subject to review on appeal. It is the rare judge who can preside over a long trial, involving many objections and rulings, who does not make at least one error. If his rulings tend to restrict the accused, abridging his basic right to be heard, and removing the right to present a credible defence, then it is the judge who becomes the accused in the eyes of the public.

In a clearly malicious prosecution it is the judge who is expected to abort the proceedings. This must be done at the earliest stage, as the public confidence in the judiciary itself begins to erode. The erosion escalates with each passing day. When, at the end of the tial, all the facts and circumstances point to an active participation by the judge in the presentation of the prosecution's case, juggling gratuituously the faulty facts to bend and fracture the foundations of fairness upon which civil society rests, the judge is seen on balance to be a tool of oppression, and the announcement of a guilty verdict is no more than confirmation of the scurrilous role he has played in the perversion of the judiciary process. Justice has not been done. The judge has perverted his role. He has knowingly convicted an innocent person.

Among the masses of the earth ...
Is there one more wretched?
Is there one more deserving of contempt?
Is there one who merits more our scorn?

Such a judge has lent himself to destruction of the magnificent edifice of the law. Such a judge has abused the trust of all. Such a judge cannot offer rationale in hopes of mitigation. No. The judge has been bought. The judge has sold us out. The judge has betrayed us. The judge has sullied the robes of office. The judge is "Your Honor" no more. The judge has demeaned the very institution which preserves and protects our daily rights. He has undermined our security and our peace of mind.

Such a judge must go. Go away. Come you back no more.

Should inner peace be found for such a judge, let it be found elsewhere.

To such a judge we say, "Fare you well."

Just go. Go away.