High Court of Public Opinion. Justice Cudlip Trout. Notes by His Honour.
It's a hard life Judging.
Take wearing the wig. It helps with the dignity stuff, but the man in the street has no idea we often adjourn to scratch wig-mites.
Then there's the ordeal of sitting all day while lawyers drone. This assaults one's posterior, but I have hopes for the vibrating cushion I've ordered online.
I used to do the Crims in the lower courts, which was pretty simple judging. You could keep one ear on proceedings, do the crossword, and still get it right. (The verdict, I mean).
But then my life changed. I developed a ground-breaking new system for calculating jail time, which was hailed by the Sensible Sentencing crowd, and my brothers on the Bench. It's scientific and unbiased. First you check the accused's tattoos.
Then you bang on an extra 18 months for each one. (See Advanced Sentencing, Cudlip Trout, NZ Law Review).
This works a treat, although Tame Iti, the Urewera military camp bloke who has tats from daylight to breakfast, escaped life plus 20. It was because he kept turning up in that silly hat. We just didn't have the heart for it.
My tattoo success earned me promotion to the new Court of Public Opinion. (''Copo'', if you must). This court serves a higher cause.
It's not chained down to the olde worlde idea of factual evidence. We're more democratic. We judge by the larger truth of what Joe Public believes - something sociologists now call ''the wisdom of crowds''.
This was once known as ''the rule of the mob'', but that was before advances like Facebook.
Joe Public's opinion sits above courtroom trickery and reasonable doubt. It sifts gossip, smear, innuendo and tweets, tirelessly seeking the best of them. Our job is to help the public through this quest for an Uninformed Consensus.
The first job I got lumped with was the case of Auckland Mayor Pants-Down Brown. Mayor Brown's affair with a much younger woman was not in itself remarkable, but we knew it was a case for Copo when the Godly began holding street protests.
Frankly, it was a mess - the exotic girlfriend, political back-stabbing, cheeky lingerie and a mayor who surprised us because he looks so very Middle Management.
I believe it was the last which caused the greatest offence. An old-fashioned judge would simply invoke the tried and true principle - Semper ubi, sub ubi. (Always wear your underpants).
But I needed to improve the process and deal with the greater legal issue - Purgamentum init, exit Purgamentum. (Garbage in, garbage out). The eminent jurist earns his lunch addressing his razor mind to Purgamentum.
So - Brown, Mistress Chuang, Luigi Wewege, John Palino, and various blogsters?
I believe I had my finest legal moment when I analysed all the issues facing the court, and distilled them to one succinct question: ''Who is the biggest creep?''I managed to avoid the brouhaha of the Ewen McDonald Scott Guy murder case.
Our clerk thought I was recusing myself on technical grounds when I told him: Cum homine de cane debeo congredi. (I have to see a man about a dog).
I didn't correct him, and brought back another Jack Russell. However, I'm afraid justice has since prevailed, as I'm now stuck with Joe Public v Kim Dotcom.
As you know, this started out as a simple question - did the fuzz trample his rights when they beat down the doors of Dotcom Mansion?
It's true Kim's case was muddied by his seeming fat, loud, rich and possibly dodgy, but it had meritsAs each month passes it's become more of a buffoons' circus. The Internet Party, for heaven's sake. Was their ever a Telegram Party, or a Post Office Party?
Presumably, the new party wants faster porn speed, and the inalienable right to text while driving.
As with the Mayor Brown case, I'm trying to reduce complex issues to one question that goes to the quick. I wonder about: ''Is Kim Dotcom a self-stimulator?'' Without much prejudice.
John Lapsley is an Arrowtown writer.
