Abstract
Conventional understandings of the judicial role emphasise impersonality, leaving little space for humour. However, the courtroom is a workplace where different professions come together, each highly dependent on the other. Solicitors, barristers and police prosecutors (in lower courts) provide information or undertake tasks necessary for judicial decision-making. Although judicial officers in both higher and lower courts have considerable formal legal authority, their direct supervisory power over the out-of-court work of these other professionals is limited. This observational study of Australian lower courts finds that one strategy magistrates adopt to bridge this gap is humour. A magistrate’s practical use of humour can help judicial officers meet organisational challenges such as time management, while the normative use of humour delineates inter-professional roles and obligations.
Earlier versions of this chapter, or parts thereof, were presented at The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) Annual Conference: Challenging Identities, Institutions and Communities, University of South Australia, Adelaide, 24–27 November 2014 and the 21st Australasian Humour Studies Network Conference, Flinders University, Adelaide, 4–6 February 2015.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
In Australia’s political system, federal courts operate at the national level and a separate court system exists for each of the six states and two territories. All states and territories have a supreme court as well as a magistrates or local court. Magistrates courts hear the less serious criminal charges, lower-value civil cases including small claims, and the first stages of all criminal cases. Australian magistrates are paid judicial officers, with legal qualifications, and appointed until a fixed retirement age (Roach Anleu and Mack 2008). They sit alone, without juries, in metropolitan, regional and remote areas; those who appear in these courts are often unrepresented. Over 90 per cent of all civil and criminal cases are initiated and finalised in the lower courts (Australian Government Productivity Commission 2017). Despite cultural and jurisdictional differences, substantial similarities between Australian magistrates courts and lower courts in other common law jurisdictions (Roach Anleu and Mack 2017) suggest that the findings regarding the use of humour in the Australian context can be generalised more widely (see also Chap. 6). Important common features include the high volume and busy nature of these courts, the substantial disadvantages faced by many court users, and interdependence between different occupational groups.
- 3.
In England and Wales, and in most Australian states and territories (except the Australian Capital Territory), the vast majority of criminal matters in the lower courts are prosecuted by police prosecutors who are employees of the police services, usually sworn police officers with policing experience, who usually do not possess legal qualifications. Legal practitioners employed or retained by an independent prosecution service—for example the Director of Public Prosecutions—undertake prosecutions of criminal matters in the higher courts and sometimes preliminary stages of serious cases in magistrates/lower courts.
- 4.
In legal professions following the English model, the profession is split between solicitors and barristers, the latter collectively known as the Bar (Prest 1986). Solicitors undertake legal work that occurs out of court, including legal advice and preparation of cases in advance of court hearings, and generally represent clients only in the lower courts. Barristers specialise in court advocacy, especially in the higher courts, and can provide specialist legal advice to solicitors. Judges are typically appointed from members of the Bar while magistrates are more often appointed from the ranks of solicitors. Some barristers are appointed as Senior Counsel (and/or Queen’s Counsel) in recognition of their experience and standing at the Bar.
- 5.
It is sometimes claimed that lawyers use adjournments (continuances) as a strategy for managing their workloads, which in turn can create problems for the courts’ efficient management of cases (Roach Anleu and Mack 2009).
- 6.
This research was undertaken as part of the Judicial Research Project at Flinders University: http://www.flinders.edu.au/law/judicialresearch/. The research was initially funded by a University-Industry Research Collaborative Grant in 2001 with Flinders University and the Association of Australian Magistrates (AAM) as the partners and also received financial support from the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA). From 2002 until 2005 it was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project Grant (LP0210306) with AAM and all Chief Magistrates and their courts as industry partners with support from Flinders University as the host institution. From 2006 the research was funded by an ARC Discovery Project Grant (DP0665198) and from 2010 it is funded by ARC DP1096888, and from 2015 ARC DP150103663. A School Research Support Grant from the former School of Social and Policy Studies facilitated the development of this chapter.
All phases of these research projects involving human subjects have been approved by the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee of Flinders University. We are grateful to several research and administrative assistants over the course of the research, and to Rhiannon Davies, Colleen deLaine, Jordan Tutton and Rae Wood for assistance on this chapter.
- 7.
All jurisdictions have some version of the criminal list which is part of the work of most magistrates at some point in their career, making it an excellent site for the investigation of everyday, and perhaps mundane, practical work. The criminal list includes non-trial proceedings entailing decisions on bail, adjournments, standing matters down (to be heard later in the list), setting the matter for another procedure (such as a trial), taking guilty pleas, and sentencing. Types of offences are mostly drink driving, theft, assault and some drug offences. As most defendants plead guilty, the study did not undertake observations of trials.
- 8.
A “matter” for our purposes was when each defendant’s case was called, regardless of whether the defendant actually appeared. Each case may have entailed only one or several charges. If two or more co-defendants appeared together, that was one matter. If a case was called, stood down and then recalled later, that was two matters, as it represented two separate events.
- 9.
In one Australian jurisdiction, the proceedings in the lower court are not recorded, thus the three sessions observed in this jurisdiction do not have accompanying transcripts.
- 10.
Transcripts have been given a consistent format: m indicates magistrate; dr indicates a defence representative; and p indicates a prosecutor. All names have been changed or deleted, participants provided with pseudonyms, where necessary, and all other identifying information removed. Letters and numbers are used to identify jurisdiction, session and magistrate anonymously so that the reader can tell when excerpts are from the same magistrate and/or session and when they are different.
- 11.
While the transcript indicates that the magistrate said “drunks’ matters” the audio recording is less clear. Another possibility is that the magistrate said “all the drugs matters”.
- 12.
The original fifteenth-century event said to have given rise to the phrase involved two rivals shaking hands through a hole in a door in St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin (Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin 2016).
- 13.
Ex parte describes a proceeding in which a judicial officer makes a decision in the absence of a party who is still bound by the decision, in this case the absent defendant.
- 14.
This is a direct reference to an earlier matter involving the defendant whose occupation is a painter. In that matter, there was discussion between the magistrate and defence representative about the time needed to pay a fine and the magistrate quipped: “I’ll give him two months. If he’s a painter, he’s obviously well paid.”
References
Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
American Bar Association. 2011. ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct.html.
Australian Government Productivity Commission. 2017. Report on Government Services: Court Administration (Chapter 7). Canberra: Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2017/justice/courts/rogs-2017-volumec-chapter7.pdf.
Baker, Thomas E. 1993. A Review of Corpus Juris Humorous. Texas Tech Law Review 24 (3): 869–889.
Barber, Bernard. 1963. Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions. Daedalus 92 (4): 669–688.
Bechky, Beth A. 2003. Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology 109 (3): 720–752.
Bell, Nancy D. 2009. Responses to Failed Humor. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (9): 1825–1836.
Bolton, Sharon C., and Maeve Houlihan. 2010. Bermuda Revisited? Management Power and Powerlessness in the Worker–Manager–Customer Triangle. Work and Occupations 37 (3): 378–403.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. Hastings Law Journal 38 (5): 814–853.
Bucher, Rue, and Joan Stelling. 1969. Characteristics of Professional Organizations. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 10 (1): 3–15.
Bybee, Keith J. 2012. Paying Attention to What Judges Say: New Directions in the Study of Judicial Decision Making. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8: 69–84.
Carlen, Pat. 1974. Remedial Routines for the Maintenance of Control in Magistrates’ Courts. British Journal of Law and Sociology 1 (2): 101–117.
———. 1976. Magistrates’ Justice. London: Martin Robertson.
Coburn, Claire, Becky Batagol and Kathy Douglas. 2013. How a Dose of Humour May Help Mediators and Disputants in Conflict. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 24: 18–25.
Coser, Rose Laub. 1960. Laughter Among Colleagues: A Study of the Social Functions of Humor Among the Staff of a Mental Hospital. Psychiatry 23: 81–95.
Davies, Margaret. 2017. Asking the Law Question. 4th ed. Sydney: Thomson Lawbook.
Eisenstein, James, Roy B. Flemming, and Peter F. Nardulli. 1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Emerson, Robert M. 1983. Holistic Effects in Social Control Decision-Making. Law and Society Review 17 (3): 425–455.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1984. Negotiated Orders and Organizational Cultures. Annual Review of Sociology 10: 239–262.
Fine, Gary Alan, and Michaela de Soucey. 2005. Joking Cultures: Humor Themes as Social Regulation in Group Life. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 18 (1): 1–22.
Flemming, Roy B., Peter F. Nardulli, and James Eisenstein. 1992. The Craft of Justice: Politics and Work in Criminal Court Communities. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Friedman, Lawrence M. 2012. Judge Judy’s Justice. Berkeley Journal of Entertainment & Sports Law 1 (2): 125–133.
Gleeson, A.M. 1998. Performing the Role of the Judge. Judicial Officers Bulletin 10 (8): 57–60.
Goffman, Erving. 1956. Embarrassment and Social Organization. American Journal of Sociology 62 (3): 264–271.
———. 1983. The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review 48 (1): 1–17.
Halpern, Sydney A. 1992. Dynamics of Professional Control: Internal Coalitions and Crossprofessional Boundaries. American Journal of Sociology 97 (4): 994–1021.
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. The Pragmatics of Humor Support. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 14 (1): 55–82.
Heydon, J.D. 2008. Aspects of Rhetoric in Forensic Advocacy over the Past 50 Years. In Rediscovering Rhetoric: Law, Language, and the Practice of Persuasion, ed. Justin T. Gleeson and Ruth C.A. Higgins, 217–249. Sydney: Federation Press.
Hobbs, Pamela. 2007. Judges’ Use of Humour as a Social Corrective. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (1): 50–68.
Holmes, Janet. 2000. Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the Workplace. Discourse Studies 2 (2): 159–185.
———. 2006. Sharing a Laugh: Pragmatic Aspects of Humor and Gender in the Workplace. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (1): 26–50.
Holmes, Janet, and Meredith Marra. 2002. Having a Laugh at Work: How Humour Contributes to Workplace Culture. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (12): 1683–1710.
Hori, Lucas K. 2012. Bons Mots, Buffoonery, and the Bench: The Role of Humor in Judicial Opinions. UCLA Law Review Discourse 60: 16–37.
Huang, Li, Francesca Gino, and Adam Galinsky. 2015. The Highest form of Intelligence: Sarcasm Increases Creativity for Both Expressers and Recipients. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 131: 162–177.
Ibrahim, Noraini, and Radha M.K. Nambiar. 2011. There Are Many Ways of Skinning a Cat, My Lord: Humour in the Malaysian Adversarial Courtroom. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 17 (2): 73–89.
Jorgensen, Julia. 1996. The Functions of Sarcastic Irony in Speech. Journal of Pragmatics 26 (5): 613–634.
Kirby, Michael. 1985. The Seven Deadly Sins. Bar News Winter: 10–11.
———. 1990. On the Writing of Judgments. Australian Law Journal 64 (11): 691–709.
Kritzer, Herbert M. 2007. Toward a Theorization of Craft. Social and Legal Studies 16 (3): 321–340.
Kuipers, Giselinde. 2008. Humor Styles and Symbolic Boundaries. Journal of Literary Theory 3: 219–240.
———. 2009. The Sociology of Humor. In The Primer of Humor Research, ed. Victor Raskin, 219–239. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Levin, Peter. 2001. Gendering the Market: Temporality, Work, and Gender on a National Futures Exchange. Work and Occupations 28 (1): 112–130.
Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Linstead, Steve. 1985. Jokers Wild: The Importance of Humour in the Maintenance of Organizational Culture. The Sociological Review 33 (4): 741–767.
Lively, Kathryn J. 2000. Reciprocal Emotion Management: Working Together to Maintain Stratification in Private Law Firms. Work and Occupations 27 (1): 32–63.
———. 2008. Status and Emotional Expression: The Influence of ‘Others’ in Hierarchical Work Settings. In Social Structure and Emotion, ed. Jody Clay-Warner and Dawn T. Robinson, 287–305. New York: Elsevier/Academic Press.
Lovaglia, Michael J., Christabel L. Rogalin, Shane D. Soboroff, Christopher P. Kelley, and Jeffrey W. Lucas. 2008. Humor and the Effectiveness of Diverse Leaders. In Social Structure and Emotion, ed. Jody Clay-Warner and Dawn T. Robinson, 21–35. New York: Elsevier.
Lynch, Michael. 1997. Preliminary Notes on Judges’ Work: The Judge as a Constituent of Courtroom ‘Hearings’. In Law in Action: Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Approaches to Law, ed. Max Travers and John F. Manzo, 99–130. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Mack, Kathy, and Sharyn Roach Anleu. 2007. ‘Getting Through the List’: Judgecraft and Legitimacy in the Lower Courts. Social & Legal Studies 16 (3): 341–361.
———. 2011. Opportunities for New Approaches to Judging in a Conventional Context: Attitudes, Skills and Practices. Monash University Law Review 37 (1): 187–215.
Mack, Kathy, Anne Wallace, and Sharyn Roach Anleu. 2012. Judicial Workload: Time, Tasks and Work Organisation. Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.
Malphurs, Ryan A. 2010. ‘People Did Sometimes Stick Things in my Underwear’: The Function of Laughter at the US Supreme Court. Communication Law Review 10 (2): 48–75.
Marder, Nancy S. 2009. Judging Judge Judy. In Lawyers in Your Living Room! Law on Television, ed. Michael Asimow, 297–308. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
———. 2012. Judging Reality Television Judges. In Law and Justice on the Small Screen, ed. Peter Robson and Jessica Sibley, 229–249. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Maroney, Terry A. 2011. The Persistent Cultural Script of Judicial Dispassion. California Law Review 99: 629–682.
———. 2012. Angry Judges. Vanderbilt Law Review 65 (5): 1207–1284.
Maroney, Terry A., and James J. Gross. 2014. The Ideal of the Dispassionate Judge: An Emotion Regulation Perspective. Emotion Review 6 (2): 142–151.
Marra, Meredith. 2007. Humour in Workplace Meetings: Challenging Hierachies. In Humour, Work and Organization, ed. Robert Westwood and Carl Rhodes, 137–157. London: Routledge.
Martin, Rod A. 2007. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Martin, Rod A., Patricia Puhlik-Doris, Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray, and Kelly Weir. 2003. Individual Differences in Uses of Humor and Their Relation to Psychological Well-Being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 37 (1): 48–75.
Mather, Lynn M. 1979. Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal-Case Disposition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
McBarnet, Doreen. 1981. Magistrates’ Courts and the Ideology of Justice. British Journal of Law & Society 8 (2): 181–198.
McKown, Martin. 2015. From the Stocks, to Handcuffs, to Hollywood: An Analysis of Public Humiliation in Judge Judy’s Syndi-Court. Hamline University’s School of Law’s Journal of Public Law and Policy 36 (2): 1–19.
Milner Davis, Jessica, and Troy Simpson. 2001. Humour. In The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia, ed. Tony Blackshield, Michael Coper, and George Williams, 328–329. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Moran, Leslie J. 2008. Judicial Bodies as Sexual Bodies: A Tale of Two Portraits. Australian Feminist Law Journal 29: 91–107.
———. 2009. Judging Pictures: A Case Study of Portraits of the Chief Justices, Supreme Court of New South Wales. International Journal of Law in Context 5 (3): 295–314.
Mulkay, Michael. 1988. On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Norrick, Neal R. 1993. Conversational Joking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Norrick, Neal R., and Alice Spitz. 2008. Humor as a Resource for Mitigating Conflict in Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (10): 1661–1686.
Prest, Wilfrid R. 1986. The Rise of the Barristers: A Social History of the English Bar 1590–1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ptacek, James. 1999. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Rees, Charlotte E., and Lynn V. Monrouxe. 2010. ‘I Should Be Lucky ha ha ha ha’: The Construction of Power, Identity and Gender Through Laughter Within Medical Workplace Learning Encounters. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (12): 3384–3399.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2009. Framed Before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social Relations. Gender & Society 23 (2): 145–160.
Roach Anleu, Sharyn. 2006. Deviance, Conformity and Control. 4th ed. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Longman.
Roach Anleu, Sharyn, and Kathy Mack. 2008. The Professionalization of Australian Magistrates: Autonomy, Credentials and Prestige. Journal of Sociology 44 (2): 185–203.
———. 2009. Intersections Between In-Court Procedures and the Production of Guilty Pleas. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 42 (1): 1–23.
———. 2010. Trial Courts and Adjudication. In Empirical Legal Research, ed. Peter Cane and Herbert M. Kritzer, 546–566. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2017. Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roach Anleu, Sharyn, Kathy Mack, and Jordan Tutton. 2014. Judicial Humour in the Australian Courtroom. Melbourne University Law Review 38 (2): 621–665.
Robinson, Dawn T., and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 2001. Getting a Laugh: Gender, Status, and Humor in Task Discussions. Social Forces 80 (1): 123–158.
Rock, Paul. 1991. Witnesses and Space in a Crown Court. British Journal of Criminology 31 (3): 266–279.
Rudman, Laurie A., and Julie E. Phelan. 2010. The Effect of Priming Gender Roles on Women’s Implicit Gender Beliefs and Career Aspirations. Social Psychology 41 (3): 192–202.
Runcie, John F. 1974. Occupational Communication as Boundary Mechanism. Work and Occupations 1 (4): 419–441.
Sahni, Isher-Paul. 2009. Max Weber’s Sociology of Law: Judge as Mediator. Journal of Classical Sociology 9: 209–233.
Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. 2016. The Door of Reconciliation, 26 May. https://www.stpatrickscathedral.ie/the-door-of-reconciliation/. Accessed 9 December 2017.
Scarduzio, Jennifer A. 2011. Maintaining Order Through Deviance? The Emotional Deviance, Power, and Professional Work of Municipal Court Judges. Management Communication Quarterly 25 (2): 285–310.
Scarduzio, Jennifer A., and Sarah J. Tracy. 2015. Sensegiving and Sensebreaking via Emotion Cycles and Emotional Buffering: How Collective Communication Creates Order in the Courtroom. Management Communication Quarterly 29 (3): 331–357.
Schnurr, Stephanie, and Angela Chan. 2009. Politeness and Leadership Discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong: A Cross-Cultural Case Study of Workplace Talk. Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2): 131–157.
Schwartz, Barry. 1974. Waiting, Exchange, and Power: The Distribution of Time in Social Systems. The American Journal of Sociology 79 (4): 841–870.
Sewell, William H. 1992. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98 (1): 1–29.
Tait, David. 2002. Sentencing and Performance: Restoring Drama to the Courtroom. In Sentencing and Society: International Perspectives, ed. Cyrus Tata and Neil Hutton, 469–480. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2010. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tata, Cyrus. 2007. Sentencing as Craftwork and the Binary Epistemologies of the Discretionary Decision Process. Social and Legal Studies 16 (3): 425–447.
The Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. 2017. Guide to Judicial Conduct. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
———. 2003. Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and the Effective Rule of Law. Crime and Justice 30: 283–357.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2002. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/corruption/judicial_group/Bangalore_principles.pdf.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Westwood, Robert, and Allanah Johnston. 2013. Humor in Organization: From Function to Resistance. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 26 (2): 219–247.
Williams, Christine L., Kristine Kilanski, and Chandra Muller. 2014. Corporate Diversity Programs and Gender Inequality in the Oil and Gas Industry. Work and Occupations 41 (4): 440–476.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roach Anleu, S., Mack, K. (2018). Judicial Humour and Inter-Professional Relations in the Courtroom. In: Milner Davis, J., Roach Anleu, S. (eds) Judges, Judging and Humour. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76738-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76738-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76737-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76738-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)