In a Constitutional Court adjudication, what is the presiding judge charged with, and which rules on courtroom order and terminology reach that hearing?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file of this kind we read the hearing record, which shows who presided and what directions were given to the parties on the conduct of the argument, and any note on words used or order kept in the courtroom. We also look for any statement in the file that a matter was dealt with under the Court Organisation Act provisions applied mutatis mutandis, since those supply the details this provision does not.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the duties as written: the presiding judge is charged with keeping the order of the adjudication courtroom, directing the argument, and arranging the deliberation, and these three responsibilities are the presiding judge's under this provision.
Another reading points to the second paragraph, which applies the Court Organisation Act provisions on maintaining order and on the use of terminology mutatis mutandis in the Constitutional Court's courtroom, so what the presiding judge may actually do about disorder or wording is set out in that other Act, while the provision's own wording carries no such detail.
Your judgment
When the presiding judge interrupts an argument or objects to a word used, what in the file could show whether that was done under the borrowed rules on courtroom order or on the use of terminology?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to alter the presiding judge's three duties or the range of Court Organisation Act provisions applied mutatis mutandis, or if a Constitutional Court decision explains what arranging the deliberation involves.