SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
I was at first surprised by any case no matter how certain the outcome legally appears to be, being only 70 percent certain when actually at verdict stage.
Initially I thought about new evidence or even super legal presentation. I now feel that judges are human and even though they try to always be fair, they must have initial feelings one way or the other.
These prejudiced feelings are presumably discussed via evidence between themselves to either agree or disagree.
Offset against this perception of individual fairness I note that at least one respected judge formed part of the final Chamber that found us guilty at UEFA.
Is it possible that amongst the Panel there are some who will be not as fair as others irrespective of evidence?
Initially I thought about new evidence or even super legal presentation. I now feel that judges are human and even though they try to always be fair, they must have initial feelings one way or the other.
These prejudiced feelings are presumably discussed via evidence between themselves to either agree or disagree.
Offset against this perception of individual fairness I note that at least one respected judge formed part of the final Chamber that found us guilty at UEFA.
Is it possible that amongst the Panel there are some who will be not as fair as others irrespective of evidence?