Good vs Voodoo judges in courts here...

1 Kings 3:16-28: New International Version (NIV)
A Wise Ruling
16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. 17 One of them said, “Pardon me, my lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. 18 The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us.
19 “During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. 20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. 21 The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”
22 The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”
But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.
23 The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”
24 Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”
26 The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”
But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”
27 Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”
28 When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.

Click to expand...

Apex court: Don't rely too much on witness' manner.
Straits Times: 03 Jun 2014: K.C. Vijayan
It also urges judges not to be swayed too much by 'faulty recollections'
JUDGES have done "no better than chance in assessing if people were lying", noted Singapore's apex court, as it issued a warning against relying too much on, say the demeanour of a witness, to decide if he or she is a liar.
The court also called on judges not to be swayed too much by "faulty recollections" in deciding whether a witness is truthful, especially when memory gaps occur after a long time between the event and the trial.
The Court of Appeal issued the rare advice in judgment grounds released last week, when it overruled a High Court decision that had granted an investment firm's claim to $1 million in dividends.
"We think it would be helpful to make some observations on these problematic issues which judges have to address in almost every trial," said Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah.
The court cited various expert materials, including a book titled Telling Lies, to warn against reading too much into instances such as when a person on the witness box scratches his nose, grabs his knees or digs into his palms.
"The witness is under the intense scrutiny of the judge and is also under intense pressure to answer counsel's questions; even truthful witnesses may wilt and display discomfort in such circumstances," wrote Judge Rajah.
Other aspects of demeanour that judges look at can include the way in which a witness responds or hesitates or whether his gaze is steady or shifting.
The apex court urged caution by the trial judge when placing reliance on these factors alone to find a witness untruthful.
Ditto the reliance on the "uncorroborated recollections" of a witness. A judge should be slow to label a witness as "untruthful" where memory gaps exist, it said.
The court's advice was sparked by its concerns about the High Court's labelling of two principal witnesses in the investment case as "evasive and/or vacillating witnesses".
The court said that although the judge was correct in being unsatisfied with their testimony, the events took place almost five years before the trial.
"A trial should not be a test or contest of memories," said the court, adding that it was better to rely on objective documentary evidence and the actual conduct of the parties.
In the case, Strategic Worldwide Assets, a British Virgin Islands company, had won a $1 million payout in the High Court last year from Sandz Solutions (Singapore), which provides information technology services.
Strategic Worldwide Assets, represented by lawyer Devinder K Rai, had then successfully argued the claim was for its 25 per cent share of dividends of $4 million declared by Sandz in 2007.
Sandz, represented by lawyer Low Chai Chong, appealed and the apex court found Sandz and Strategic had an understanding that the latter would not have any claim against Sandz, including dividends.
Reversing the High Court decision, the court, among other things, found that the deal by Strategic to buy 25 per cent of Sandz was not completed at the time and thus did not entitle it to the dividends.
[email protected]
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd.
Download case: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw...web subscription&utm_medium=web&src=judgments

Click to expand...