Judges are not infallible

IN OPINING on the seemingly neverending Oscar Pistorius saga, William Saunderson-Meyer (Weekend Argus, December 2) refers to Judge Masipa’s “monumental series of cock-ups”. Judges are not infallible.

Yet, but for the intense media scrutiny, arising from the identity of the accused, the judicial conduct of Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case would have received little, if any, attention from the media.

The fact of the matter is that numerous judgments (especially in civil matters) are regularly set aside on appeal; in some instances the conduct (and implicitly, the competence) of the presiding judge is called into question.

Typically, these impugned judgments rarely, if ever, elicit any media publicity.

In altering Pistorius’s conviction for culpable homicide to murder, the Appeal Court expressly stated that “the fact that this court has determined that certain mistakes were made should not be seen as an adverse comment upon her competence and ability.

“The fact is that different judges reach different conclusions…”

On the other hand, the Appeal Court itself has handed down several questionable judgments on occasion.

A rather egregious example of this was the defamation action of one Lothar Neethling, when it rejected compelling evidence of the existence of apartheid-era death squads, which, of course, would subsequently be proved during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings.

Quos custodiet ipsos custodies? Why single out Judge Masipa?