From: Russ Brown <russellstewartbrown@gmail.com>
To: Mitchell, Charles <charles.mitchell@ucl.ac.uk>
CC: ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 23/05/2013 11:00:54 UTC
Subject: Re: Electronic justice

Dear Charles,

As it happens, the Supreme Court of Canada will be issuing judgment this Friday in Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, where a similar judicial cut-and-paste judgment was overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal (and a new trial ordered by a majority).

From the Supreme Court's case summary:

Appeals Judgments Reasons for judgment Decision of the trial judge contained large sections of the appellants’ written closing submissions, without attribution Court of Appeal majority allowed appeals and ordered a new trial If a trial judge adopts the submissions of only one party into his or her reasons for judgment, is the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality so fundamentally displaced so as to render the trial unfair (or a nullity) in the absence of cogent evidence of bias? Whether the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence and in failing to consider the respondents’ causation defence.

The appellant, Eric Victor Cojocaru, the son of the appellant Monica Cojocaru, suffered brain damage during his birth at the B.C. Women’s Hospital and Health Care Center. An action was commenced against the hospital and its employees. At trial, the respondents were found to be liable and damages of $4 million were awarded. However, in his reasons, the trial judge copied almost word for word, without attribution, significant portions of the appellants’ closing submissions. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and ordered a new trial. The dissenting reasons reviewed the trial decision on its merits and would have allowed the appeals in part





On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Mitchell, Charles <charles.mitchell@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
In this exam season, colleagues may be wondering what to do with assessed written work found wanting by turnitin software. They may take some guidance from Crinion v IG Markets Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 587, online at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/587.html . The issue was whether a serious procedural irregularity had been committed, causing the decision to be unjust under CPR 52.11 (3) (b), where 94% of the judgment was a word-for-word copy of the closing submissions by counsel for the claimant. At [39] Sir Stephen Sedley observes that information technology 'has made it seductively easy to do what the judge did in this case', but 'has also made it embarrassingly easy to demonstrate what he has done.' He also reminisces about the days when 'the occasional judge, familiar to an earlier generation of counsel, … would pick up his pen (sometimes for the first time) and require the favoured advocate to address him at dictation speed.' Best wishes, Charles

___________________________________________

Professor Charles Mitchell
Faculty of Laws
University College London
Bentham House
Endsleigh Gardens
LONDON WC1H 0EG