JUDGE AND BE JUDGED

196pp + XXV prelims including preface, acknowledgements, contents, principle works cited with mode of citation, bibliography, table of cases and table of enactments.

Hard cover. Green board with gilt lettering. Intact dust jacket protected by cellophane. The end papers show minor tanning along the dust jacket line. There is minor edge-wear along the bottom edge of the book's cover.

Dust jacket synopsis:

The author examines the extent to which criticism of the South Africa judiciary - where such criticism is seen not to have been fair or legitimate - has resulted in unwarranted damage to judicial credibility. 

The study is based on the author's doctoral thesis which received attention in Hansard during 1987. This recent contribution to the ongoing debate surrounding the judiciary will certainly interest readers irrespective of whether or not they agree with the author's views.

The analysis focuses on those issues which constitute the most sensitive aspects of the judiciary, namely:

• academic and press scrutiny of race as a factor in sentencing
• judicial policy in security matters
• judicial appointments...

Adrienne van Blerk is a Retired Professor of Law and Advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa. She obtained her Doctorate of Law in 1987.

In 1993 Judge DH van Zyl, Judge of the Supreme Court, South Africa wrote an address entitled: The judiciary in a changing South Africa, which references this book. 

In a work intended to counter the neg­ative conclusions reached by Corder, Forsyth and other critics of the judicia­ry, Professor Van Blerk directs her at­tention to criticising the critics for what she sees as frequently unfair and unjus­tified criticism which has succeeded only in injuring judicial credibility. She scrutinises the role of the judiciary in such sensitive matters as security cases and sentencing where race is a factor. She also attempts to place judicial ap­pointments of the past in a more bal­anced perspective than some of the critics have done. Whether she has suc­ceeded in creating a more favourable image of the South African bench is, of course, debatable. The message which comes across, however, is clear: be fair in your criticism and refrain from gen­eralisations which can do more harm than good.

https://www.gcbsa.co.za/law-journals/1994/april/1994-april-vol007-no1-pp16-21.pdf