Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I am afraid that Peter's imagination is working overtime.

I have insisted that a particular point is obvious. And I have been right to do this, because others working within the same procedural setup have agreed that it is indeed obvious. And the discussion has advanced our understanding, because it has become clear why some others have *not* regarded it as obvious: It is because they are making different assumptions about procedure, assumptions which are more reasonable given the jurisdiction from which they come. Those assumptions have been teased out in argument. So our understanding has been advanced: We understand more about how procedure shapes substantive law, and the relation between them. We have not necessarily come to agreement, but our understanding has been advanced anyway.

Yet in Peter's mind, my single insistence on obviousness has been converted into a fantasy world where *every* reply to *every* legal question starts with the words "It is obvious that …" This bears no resemblance to anything I have said, or am ever likely to say. The ability to call a spade a spade is a very useful one, and all jurists use it on occasion. Indeed, my last message gave an example where Peter himself used it, making claims about what "all reasonable men" would believe (another way of saying that it is obvious and needs no argument). This is part of everyday discourse. It is nothing unusual. It is not objectionable. And whether it is right on a particular occasion is a matter for debate on that occasion.

I, for one, would very much prefer it if Peter were to debate the issues which divide us, which he is very well qualified to do. To invent non-issues, or to claim that a perfectly normal and intelligible argument is "anti-rational", does him no credit. Wrong, it may possibly be. Anti-rational, it is not.

Steve Hedley