NEW: How Do Judges Think?

And What You Should (and Shouldn’t) Say in Front of One

How should a person address a judge in court?

Say “Judge.”

That’s it. You’ll often hear people say “Your Honour,” but that’s imported from American television, which is a clear sign that you're watching too much Netflix.

In Ireland, “Judge” is correct across the board — District, Circuit, and even High Court.

If you forget, “Sir” or “Miss” will do.

But respect is everything.

Not over-the-top deference. Just quiet respect.

The kind you’d show someone whose decision might affect the rest of your life.

Can judges have opinions?

Yes — and they do.

But they should keep them to themselves, especially when evidence is being given in court.

Let me be clear, while evidence is being heard they shouldn’t intervene on one side or the other, or say something that gives the impression of favouring one side or the other.

"They value the idea of fairness above all other considerations.

Another way to describe this is if the case stinks to high heaven

and somebody is being unfairly treated,

no judge is going to stand for that.

So they’ll find a legal reason to avoid it.

Fairness is everything"

But that doesn’t mean they don’t have opinions.

As Judge Richard Posner once wrote:

“A judge’s reasoning is primarily intuitive.”

He meant that judges often make decisions based on a consideration of all of the evidence.

That is right.

But some don't.

Some make a decision initially and then work backwards to find the legal reasoning to support it.

That’s not the law.

That’s what journalists do.

Journalists are supposed to gather the evidence and then write a story based on their conclusions.

But they invariably don’t.

A conclusion is reached in the editorial newsroom, and then evidence is found to fit the conclusion.

That is not journalism.

Similarly, a judge who forms a view of a defendant/case at the outset is not performing the function of a judge.

But most don’t. They value the idea of fairness above all other considerations.

Another way to describe this is if the case stinks to high heaven and somebody is being unfairly treated, no judge is going to stand for that.

So they’ll find a legal reason to avoid it.

Fairness is everything.

What personality traits do judges have?

It depends — but here’s what I’ve noticed in courtrooms across Ireland:

• They don’t like exaggeration. When you exaggerate, it’s a clear sign your argument is weak.

• They remember how you behaved, not just what you said.

• They prefer preparation over performance.

• They often favour logic over emotion — unless the story truly moves them.

The best ones are even-tempered, curious, patient, and firm.

But no two judges are the same. Most lawyers prefer judges who will sit through the evidence without interruption, and make a decision at the end.

The worst ones -and as a man I’m not happy to say this-are usually men.

A small number constantly intervene as evidence is being given, or hector defence lawyers as they are cross-examining witnesses. These are “activist” judges.

"A conclusion is reached in the editorial newsroom,

and then evidence is found to fit the conclusion.

That is not journalism.

Similarly, a judge who forms a view of a defendant/case

at the outset is not performing the function of a judge"

In other words, they don’t know how to shut up.

In my experience around the country, with the exception of one female judge, all the “activist” judges -and there are quite a few- are men.

I assume it’s an ego thing but is really annoying.

Its also unfair because in its worst form, it acts to distract the defence from representing their client.

One male judge that I know turns to face the State witness as they give evidence, smiling and nodding his head as he writes down what they’re saying.

I’m not joking.

How do judges make their decisions?

This is where most people get it wrong.

Judges are not asking: “Do I believe this person?

”They’re asking: “Has the prosecution proven every part of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt?”

If not — even if it’s a legal or procedural flaw — they must acquit.

That’s the law.

As I often tell my clients:

“They have to get all the elements of the offence right all the time. You just have to create one doubt in the judge’s mind.”

That’s why even serious charges can collapse without a defendant ever speaking.

"Two youths were standing at the back

of the court chatting.

The judge looked down the court and

with a dread expression coldly pointed

at one the youths. I’ll never forget what he said:

“You’d want to shut up now,

because I have a habit of turning against people,

for no reason”.

Not quite parliamentary language but it got the job done. There was no more chatting.

Still, you see some judges battling with this.

They see an acquittal as someone “getting off on a technicality”.

Let me make this clear: there are no such things as “technicalities”.

This is a term invented by the media. There is the law, just the law and when the legislature wrote the law they included legal safeguards to ensure fair procedures.

They gave this a lot of thought.

These aren’t ‘technicalities’, they’re legal protections. If they end up protecting someone they have done their job.

What qualities do judges need?

• Judgment, obviously.

• Emotional self-control, especially when dealing with upset or angry defendants.

• Fairness, which isn’t the same as leniency.

• And a good memory.

Because if you lie, interrupt, or show up looking unprepared — they’ll remember.

Patience is also a virtue.

I remember a judge appeared on the bench once. He wasn’t in good mood.

Two youths were standing at the back of the court happily chatting.

The judge looked down the court and with a dread expression coldly pointed at one of the youths. I’ll never forget what he said:

“You’d want to shut up now" he said quietly, "because I have a habit of turning against people, for no reason”.

Not quite parliamentary language but it got the job done. The chatting ended.

What should you not say to a judge?

You’d be surprised how often people say things that sink them. Don’t say:

·       ‘Yeah’.

·       ‘Dunno’.

·       ‘What’?

I’m not joking.

The amount of idiots who address judges like this every day always amazes me.

If someone walked into your house and disrespected you, what would you think?

Look at court as the judge’s house.

How do you get a judge to rule in your favour?

You don’t flatter them. You don’t grovel. You stay calm.

Let your lawyer speak. Stick to the facts.

Judges respect people who take responsibility, who don’t talk too much, and who don’t waste their time.

And don’t start crying. This only elicits eye-rolling.

Judges hate it because it’s often employed by people trying to influence their decision.

What does “judicial temperament” mean?

It’s the ability to stay calm, neutral, and focused — even when the courtroom is tense.

A judge with poor temperament will lash out, get sarcastic, or worse.

A good judge won’t.

Judicial temperament is the difference between a fair trial and a courtroom disaster.

"That’s why we don’t want robot judges.

We want people.

And people are messy.

Judges have brothers and sisters too, you know.

And they’re different to them.

Just like your family are different to you"

Is being a judge hard?

It can be. And not just because of the law.

Judges have to sentence people they may pity.

They have to hear devastating cases and still try to return to logic and levity.

They have to resist public opinion.

In the age of social media where maniacs turn to abuse online, they have to ignore that.

They also carry a burden most people don’t see: Knowing that one mistake — one overlooked fact — could destroy a life.

And that’s on them.

Why do different judges give different sentences for the same offence?

That’s the million-euro question.

Behavioural economist Daniel Kahneman calls it “noise” — the hidden variability in human judgment.

• Judges are more lenient in the morning and right after lunch.

• They’re stricter when tired, hungry, or rushed.

• Some judges are naturally sympathetic. Others believe in deterrence.

Posner, again, put it bluntly:

“Judges are human. Expect variation.”

People say they want consistency — until it’s their own son, daughter, or brother in the dock. Then they want compassion.

That’s why we don’t want robot judges.

We want people.

And people are messy.

Judges have brothers and sisters too, you know.

And they’re different to them.

Just like your family are different to you.

Final thought

Don’t ask: “Will the judge believe me?”

Ask: “Can the State prove their case?”

Because belief doesn’t win cases.

Doubt does.

Hope is not a strategy.

After all, it’s the choice between going off the road or driving home.

And everybody wants to drive home.