“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice”

It has very occasionally been my uncomfortable task over the years to gently explain to disappointed litigants that law and justice are not necessarily the same thing. This notion can come as a bit of a surprise to many since we are all brought up to assume that the two terms are synonymous.

Court buildings all over the world are crowned with the representation of the Scales of Justice, symbolizing the fair and equal administration of the law, without corruption, prejudice, or favour.

Our laws are the principles and regulations established as rules of our society and applicable to all. They take the form of legislation and common law, and are recognized and enforced by the courts.

Justice is concerned with moral rightness and, in theory at least, justice should follow as a natural consequence of the fair and proper administration of law. The fact that the two do not always coincide can be for a wide variety of reasons.

One primary reason is that laws of themselves can sometimes be unjust. A law may simply be downright unjust, such as the law which excluded women from sitting on a jury, or the laws which, in effect, made contraception illegal in Ireland. There are other laws which are, in the view of those affected, unjust towards them. For instance very many smokers regard the smoking ban as unjust. Many non-religious regard the introduction of a criminal offence of blasphemy as being unjust.

Where a court enforces an unjust law there cannot be justice. There is also the consideration that there is no way of precisely measuring what is just in any particular set of circumstances. My interpretation of what constitutes justice may differ fundamentally from yours. There are some who believe that justice can only be achieved by respecting the rights and dignity of their fellow man and others who believe that justice can be dispensed with a baseball bat.

Another reason why law and justice do not always coincide is because law is administered by judges, and judges differ. To one judge justice can only be achieved by a rigorous adherence to the letter of the law, whereas for another the harsher edges of the law might be trimmed to arrive at what they would regard as a fair and just decision. Some judges believe that their function is to administer the law, others believe that they should dispense justice.The American Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. expressed the former view when he said during a case, “This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice”

I remember many years ago seeing at first hand a clear exposition of the difference between law and justice. I was sitting in court and watching a court case unfold where an injured lady was suing a lorry driver for damage and injury caused by his reckless driving. On the evidence it was absolutely clear that the lorry driver was at fault although, while he admitted driving the lorry, he persistently denied responsibility for the accident. After a number of independent witnesses had given evidence it was clear that the injured lady must win. However, when the case concluded the judge turned to the lady’s barrister with the words, “ You presented no evidence that the man was the owner of the lorry. Case dismissed”.

The most surprised person in the courtroom that day was the lorry driver.

That was the administration of law, not justice.