 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 99 2.3. Sharp differences of views expressed on Q. 21.- Let it be said at the very outset that replies received on the question of limiting oral arguments to half an hour on either side show an extremely sharp difference of views. Broadly speaking, there seem to exist three views on the question. There are, in the first place, those who are in favour of some such time limit (some of these replies, however, stipulate that written arguments should be allowed). Secondly, there are those who are strongly opposed to any change in this regard; they would not place any time limit on oral arguments as such. Thirdly, many of the replies take a middle view. They do recognise that there is need to place some limit on oral arguments. But they do not favour any hard and fast mathematical limit in this regard. They would leave the matter to the judge, having regard to the fact that the time that may be considered reasonable in each case must be assessed on a consideration of a variety of factors, such as the complexity of the case, the nature of the issues, the volume and character of evidence, the caliber of counsel and the judge and so on. It is not our intention to give a precise numerical count of the replies that fall in each category mentioned above. However, we may state here, as a matter of information, that broadly speaking, the replies in the first and second categories almost equal each other in number. A small but sizeable number of replies fall in the third category, representing the middle view.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back