Fidelis Munyoro — A magistrate has come under fire from a High Court judge over a poorly written judgment replete with deficiencies that undercut its value and reliability, although the conviction was proper and the sentence appropriate.
Justice Esther Muremba agreed with the conviction and sentence of Gift Kufandirori on charges of domestic violence although she did have to examine both the record and judgment carefully when the case turned up for review at the High Court.
She was alarmed by the informal and unprofessional language used with frequent grammatical errors that detracted from the clarity and precision required in a judgment. The content was badly detailed, failing to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence presented by both the State and Kufandirori.
The tough criticism by Justice Muremba in the matter was directed at an unnamed magistrate who made a mess of the judicial work.
"The judgment has several notable shortcomings in terms of language, content, and analysis. The language used is too informal for a legal judgment, with words like 'laughable' being inappropriate and unprofessional," said Justice Muremba.
Justice Muremba also found that the judgment used dismissive and subjective language, such as calling Kufandirori's defence 'laughable' and 'ridiculous', which could indicate bias and a lack of impartiality which are crucial elements in judicial proceedings.
"Numerous grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures make the judgment difficult to read and understand," she added.
Judicial officers, she said, should use neutral and objective language to critique the defence, such as describing it as "unconvincing," "lacking in credibility," or "not supported by the evidence".
The judgment also lacked clarity in several places, making it hard to follow the magistrate's reasoning.
The allegations section was found to be too brief and lacked detail, failing to provide sufficient context about the case.
The defence outline was not clearly and fully presented in the judgment while the summary of the evidence was vague and lacked detail about how the complainant was assaulted by Kufandirori and how he denied the assault.
Also the analysis of the evidence ruled superficial and lacked depth, failing to adequately explain how the evidence supported the findings.
It was on that basis, Justice Muremba found the judgment biased, with the magistrate dismissing Kufandirori's defence as "ludicrous and faltering" without proper analysis.
Justice Muremba said a more detailed examination of the evidence and reasoning would have strengthened the judgment.
"A well-written judgment should be clear, concise, and logically structured, maintaining objectivity and impartiality.
"The trial magistrate's judgment in this matter serves as a reminder of the critical aspects to consider in judgment writing, such as language, content, and analysis.
"Key aspects of language include clarity and precision, a formal tone, and correct grammar and syntax. It is essential to use clear, unambiguous, and professional language, avoiding any bias to ensure objectivity," Justice Muremba said.
Legal judgments, she added, should uphold impartiality and respect, regardless of the perceived quality of the accused's defence. Justice Muremba said the quality of judicial decisions affects public confidence in the legal system.
Poorly reasoned judgments can undermine trust in the judiciary and the perception of fairness and competence, said the judge. She noted that a well-written and reasoned judgment informs litigants of the reasons for the decision, demonstrates the fairness and correctness of the decision and excludes arbitrariness and bias.
"It is my hope that this review judgment will guide the trial magistrate and other magistrates in writing future judgments," she said. The need for rigorous adherence to judicial standards when writing judgments cannot be overemphasised."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Since the conviction of the accused was proper, despite the poorly written judgment, the judge ruled that there was no miscarriage of justice and certified the proceedings as being in accordance with real and substantial justice.
Last month, another High Court judge, Justice Faith Mushure, ordered training for a blundering magistrate whose name was also not disclosed.
This was after the magistrate improperly convicted a reckless commuter-omnibus driver of a lesser offence than was proved and so imposed a "disturbingly inappropriate sentence".
The magistrate had sentenced the driver to six months in jail, wholly suspended, even though the kombi driver hit two vehicles while driving the wrong way down a one-way street in the city centre.
