A good and faithful judge,' wrote Horace in the Odes, 'prefers what is just to what is expedient'. Court cases are sometimes controversial and can attract wide interest. The public and the media will often express their views on the merits of a case, perhaps in strident tones. This is inevitable in a free society, but safeguards exist to protect the integrity of the related legal proceedings.
If a case is before the court for decision, the 'sub judice rule' applies, which means that while the matter is being judicially considered, it should not be prejudged by debate outside the court. The function of the court must not be usurped by others. The rule applies where proceedings are imminent or ongoing, and applies not just to the parties themselves and their lawyers, but also to the public, the media and politicians.
In a criminal case which may be tried by a jury, it is important for public debate on the guilt or innocence of the suspect to be avoided, as this might influence the potential jurors. However, in the case of serious crime, pretrial publicity is inevitable, and the judge will need to ensure the defendant has a fair trial.
The judge will direct the jurors to disregard what they may have heard about the case previously, and to decide the issues on the basis of the evidence placed before them. Court of Final Appeal judge Roberto Ribeiro has said that 'the jury may sensibly be credited with the ability to overcome any pretrial prejudice because of the nature and atmosphere of the trial process itself'.
In rare circumstances, the judge may even adjourn the case until the publicity has died down, or transfer the case for trial by a judge sitting alone, on the basis that he or she will not be affected by the publicity. It is almost unheard of for a judge to stop the case altogether because the publicity has deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial, although defendants do sometimes seek this remedy. As England's former chief justice Lord Taylor once said, if it were otherwise, this 'would mean that if allegations of murder are sufficiently horrendous so as inevitably to shock the nation, the accused cannot be tried, and that would be absurd'.
If, however, a case, whether civil or criminal in nature, is tried by a judge sitting alone, the concerns over the effect of pretrial publicity on the case effectively fall away. Upon appointment, the judge will have taken an oath to 'safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit'. This means that he or she is taken to be capable of deciding the case on the basis of the evidence and the law, and of not responding to extraneous influences in the decision-making process.