Leaving Emotion Out

Abstract

Litigants in person (LiPs) receive the message that emotion should be “left out” of New Zealand courtrooms. This is a confusing and impossible goal. This paper draws on two empirical studies and argues that the exhortation to leave emotion out is multi-layered, referring to behaving and thinking like a lawyer, including a focus on the commercial or transactional elements of disputes, rather than on other aspects that are important to litigants. This is often not possible for LiPs and it can reduce their sense of procedural justice and result in the omission of legally relevant material. Judges can respond to LiPs who violate the emotion regime by allowing LiPs to explain aspects of the dispute that are salient to them. We need to consider how the civil courts can allow more space for litigants to tell stories, rather than focusing only on the commercial or transactional aspects of disputes. Los litigantes autorrepresentados de Nueva Zelanda reciben el mensaje de que las emociones deben “quedarse fuera” del juzgado. Se trata de un objetivo imposible de lograr. Utilizando material de dos estudios empíricos, este artículo argumenta que la exhortación a desprenderse de las emociones tiene muchas capas, referidas a comportarse y pensar como un abogado, incluyendo la atención dada a los elementos comerciales o transaccionales de una disputa más que a otros aspectos importantes para los litigantes. Las partes que se representan a sí mismas no pueden cumplir ese mandato, y su sentido de justicia procedimental puede verse reducida y resultar en la omisión de material jurídicamente relevante. Los jueces pueden permitir a los autorrepresentados explicar aspectos de la disputa que les parecen destacables. Debemos considerar cómo los juzgados de lo civil pueden dejar que los litigantes cuenten historias en lugar de centrarse sólo en los aspectos comerciales o transaccionales.

Artificial Intelligence and Quality of Composition Verdicts in Indonesia: Lessons from New Zealand

“…At the same time, It exceeds that, it is only resolved in the District Court where the process is regulated in the District Court Rules 2014. 44 The difference is in the process, where settlement in the Dispute Tribunal is simpler, faster and cheaper than in the District Court. Even on the official website of the New Zealand Ministry of Justice, they warn that every person who will prosecute to the district court to contact their lawyer / legal counsel.…”

Self-represented litigation and meaningful access to justice in Aotearoa and Samoa

“…This corroborates with international evidence (Hann et al, 2002). The lowest income earners with little disposable income, and those often caught in a catch-22 situation—earning too much to qualify for legal aid and too little to obtain legal assistance, account for about 1% of legal aid grants in civil cases (Toy-Cronin, 2015, 2016). Reasons for disengaging from the justice system vary from financial barriers, racism and 2014 Family Justice Reforms restricting legal representation in family courtrooms, to name a few.…”

“…Smith et al, 2009). A more recent Access to Justice Working Group paper outlined various innovations to legal services, different service types, delivery models for services, funding sources, fee arrangements, with recommendations for action by the New Zealand Bar associations for ways to cater to diverse legal needs (Toy-Cronin, 2016).…”

“…As a starting point, self-represented litigants (SRLs) are commonly defined as litigants who are not represented by legal counsel or noted in reference to other popular terms such as pro se litigants , lay litigants , unrepresented litigants or “People without Representation by Lawyers” (Toy-Cronin, 2016, pp. 10–11).…”

“…SRLs have become more acute over time as legal systems have shifted towards a more consumerist ethos and functionality approach which affords greater rights and respect to those who can afford the cost of litigation (Toy-Cronin, 2015, 2016). These developments are at odds with the 1990 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers which calls for state governments to “ensure the provision of sufficient funding and other resources for legal services to the poor and, as necessary, to other disadvantaged persons” which leads to a series of challenges the legal system must address to achieve equal justice for participants (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.…”