Saturday, 25 April 2026
The Type of Lawyer I Am
Sunday, 3 March 2024
Extraordinary Attorney Woo: The Testimony of a witness versus the Submissions made by an Attorney
L A Law went by me during the 80's without me ever feeling the need to see even an episode of it.
Somehow Ally McBeal got me hooked in 1997. Then there was the Afrikaans legal drama "Fynskrif"...
Now- Extraordinary Attorney Woo has found a devoted fan in me.
South Korean actress Eunbin Park plays an autistic young attorney Woo Young Woo in this series who is hired by a large law firm and proves her worth from day 1. Along with her social awkwardness and her seemingly never-ending battle with the revolving door she displays a brilliant legal mind with creative problem solving that amazes her colleagues.
Still- being on the autistic spectrum draws negative attention. Surprisingly enough the first cheap shot at her autism is taken only in the third episode. This was made by a Prosecutor who asked an expert witness the question- Should the submissions of this Attorney bear the same weight in Court as the testimony of the Accused (who is also autistic).
If you read this question and actually wonder what the answer is thereto you should actually read this blog post to learn the answer. This question was never answered in the episode. Attorney Woo did resign because of it, though...
It is true that for a witness' testimony to be even allowed in Court the witness has to be sober and sound of mind. If there are ever concerns about a witness' capacity to testify the Court requests for an assessment to be made by a medical doctor or psychologist before that witness is questioned in trial.
Now what about the Attorney? The thing is- the Attorney does not testify.
The Attorney does ask questions- and as long as there are no objections to the questions they are allowed. The Attorney also makes submissions and delivers arguments. These submissions and arguments are based on the facts that have been placed on record through the witnesses' testimony and any other evidence that is used during the trial.
In considering the Attorney's submissions and arguments the Judge or Magistrate in any event has to test them against existing law. An Attorney's mental capacity would net even come into consideration when that happens. Think about it- An Attorney who does not know and understand the Law shall not even be able to make any valid submissions to begin with.
A witness' testimony, however, has to be considered for credibility and reliability. A witness does not need to know the law in order to testify. In fact- the most credible witnesses know nothing about the law to begin with. It is the testimony of those with legal knowledge that you should watch out for...
One will never know for certain whether a witness tells the truth. The best the Court can do is to at least make certain that the person who testifies before it knows what he is saying and understands what it is to speak the truth.
That Prosecutor is himself a lawyer and should know this.
Well... I have to watch the next episode to see if Young Woo returns to work...
Saturday, 21 October 2023
Loadshedding: Where are the Lawyers?
Standing up to corruption in South Africa is bad for your health. I think we all know that.
By now I have heard of policemen that choose to rather not investigate murders for fear of retaliation from police officers who are actually involved in same. As unpopular as I have made myself in certain circles I have received my fair share of threats and verbal abuse from public servants whom I have dared to ask to just do their work. Still- I love standing up to those who abuse their power and I still do not get tired of making sure that those who want to laze about in their offices while being paid with our tax money actually get to do some work...
It goes without saying that I was going to buy André de Ruyter's book no matter what the cost.
I asked:
Where were the lawyers to apply for a mandamus order against the SAPS and the Hawks when clear evidence could be produced of a matter having been referred to them for investigation?
Where were the Labour Law experts to make sure that people within Eskom who did not want to do their jobs would no longer be on the payroll? I especially would have loved to see those employees who had assisted in the committing of the fuel oil and coal fraud dismissed...
Where were the Administrative Law experts to challenge the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy's rejection of a plan that could have ended loadshedding in 6 years' time...?
These lawyers would have needed evidence and from what I have read Mr De Ruyter and those that stood by his side had plenty of that. It just needed to be used properly...
I have finished the book just as the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services issued a regulation that us legal practitioners had to render at least 40 hours of community service per year. It did not take me very long to decide what kind of community service I wanted to render- so I reached out on Facebook...
(Please forgive me if the link does not work. Technology and I have a toxic relationship at times...)
https://web.facebook.com/100001778128460/videos/1430136687587710/
I won't be surprised if Mr De Ruyter is not the only one with evidence on hand with which to expose and persecute those responsible for the sorry state of our country's electricity supply. If any such person wishes to share useful information with me to use in this Community Service project they are welcome. I will understand if you would choose to remain anonymous.
This invitation is not extended to only those at management level, but also to any employee of Eskom in my area who finds him or herself victimised for just doing his or her job...
If other Attorneys want to step up and offer their services for this cause I can only imagine what change it will bring about.
Let's start making a change...