When Pedantry Fails The Justice System +

When Pedantry Misses Subtlety: Why Justice Demands a 360-Degree View

By Liz Lucy Robillard & Ai


In law, pedantry can be a curse. The obsession with procedural precision, semantics, or so-called “objective standards” often misses the humanity behind a case — its emotional, social, psychological, and moral dimensions. Nowhere is this more evident than in cases where rigid adherence to precedent or statutory wording has led to catastrophic injustice.

This post explores how legal pedantry has failed people across jurisdictions, why true justice requires nuance, and how the mediation movement — led by experts like the UK's Paul Sandford — offers a more future-focused, humane path.

I. When Legal Pedantry Fails: Case Studies

1. UK: R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8

Issue: Joint enterprise doctrine punished people for crimes they did not commit directly.

Result: Supreme Court overturned decades of flawed precedent.

Why it matters: For years, courts rigidly applied faulty logic. Only later did the judiciary admit the approach was legally and morally wrong.

Quote: “The law took a wrong turn...” — Lord Hughes

2. Australia: Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1

Issue: Doctrine of terra nullius erased Indigenous land rights.

Result: High Court rejected the doctrine and acknowledged native title.

Lesson: Rigid colonial-era logic denied nuance and cultural context for over 200 years.

3. USA: Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Issue: U.S. Supreme Court upheld forced sterilisation of people deemed “unfit.”

Quote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Outcome: A horrifying example of medical-legal pedantry void of moral or scientific scrutiny.

4. Sweden: The Lexbase Scandal

Issue: Public access to legal databases without contextual protection for those wrongly accused or acquitted.

Consequence: Ruined reputations based on rigid, context-less data.

5. India: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Result: Supreme Court ruled Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure.

Why relevant: A rare example where not following procedural pedantry saved democracy.

II. Why Narrow Legal Thinking Is Dangerous

Overlooks the individual: Every case is different. Trauma, neurodivergence, class, culture, and power dynamics shift meaning and intent.

Reinforces inequality: Those without legal literacy or social capital are disproportionately harmed when nuance is dismissed.

Erodes trust: When courts show no flexibility, they cease to be forums for fairness and start to resemble bureaucratic engines of harm.

Delays progress: Legal systems based solely on past precedent struggle to adapt to new scientific, psychological, and social knowledge

III. The 360-Degree Perspective: What Justice Should Be

Context-aware: Recognises the living reality around the facts.

Psychologically informed: Accounts for trauma, development, intent, and neurodivergence.

Culturally sensitive: Avoids Western or elite bias in moral/legal reasoning.

Flexible: Uses discretion as a force for good — not laziness, but moral courage.

Compassionate: Understands that outcomes matter more than procedural bragging rights.

IV. Mediation: The Humane Alternative

Enter Paul Sandford, UK mediator and trainer, known for his dedication to accessible and restorative justice.

Sandford’s approach:

Encourages mutual understanding over adversarial destruction.

Applies therapeutic insight to conflict resolution.

Promotes community-based outcomes.

Reduces re-traumatisation — especially in family and disability-related disputes.

This model offers a viable, scalable alternative to litigation in many civil and social contexts.

“Mediation is not soft justice. It’s precision compassion — tailored, subtle, and far more accountable than the courtroom chessboard.” — Liz Lucy Robillard

V. Recommended Reading & References

Cases & Legal Materials

R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8

Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Lexbase controversy — see: “Sweden’s Lexbase and the Danger of Data without Ethics,” The Local (Sweden)

Articles & Journals

“Beyond Legal Formalism: A New Approach to Justice,” Harvard Law Review (Vol 132, 2019)

“Trauma-Informed Justice,” Journal of Law and Social Policy, 2020

Sandford, P. (2022). The Future of Mediation in a Fractured Society (Independent briefing)

UK Ministry of Justice (2021). Mediation and Dispute Resolution: The Evidence Base

Books

Carol Gilligan – In a Different Voice (on moral reasoning beyond binary thinking)

Martha Minow – Making All the Difference

Richard Susskind – Online Courts and the Future of Justice

Daniel Kahneman – Thinking, Fast and Slow (on how assumptions shape judgments)

Brené Brown – Dare to Lead (on empathy, trauma and decision-making)

Training & Mediation Resources

Paul Sandford Mediation: https://paulsandfordmediation.co.uk

The College of Mediators (UK): https://collegeofmediators.co.uk

Resolution (for family mediators): https://resolution.org.uk


Conclusion: Law Needs Soul

Rigid legalism is easy. True justice is hard. It takes courage to look beyond form, to ask deeper questions, and to honour every story. Let’s lift up those who are making that possible — and start writing judgments that future generations won’t have to apologise for.

Also- see Lucy v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 1997


liz lucy robillard 12/07/25

lizlucyrobillard crd.co




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Witchhunt

From my upcoming memoir: 'My son suffers from severe autism or possibly Angelman syndrome (which wasn't definitively excluded when he underwent genetic testing). As a concerned parent, I reached out to several specialists in the field of autism, desperate to know how best to support him. In 1994, when my son was two, I started an information service called Autistic Information Matters to seek answers, provide support, and share facts. After much difficulty with professionals—including a Professor Ben Sacks who cruelly suggested I send my two-year-old to an institution (I told him to get out)—I discovered Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). At the time, I believed it might be a miracle cure that could help my son begin speaking. However, after extensive research and insights from other parents, I came to realize that autism is an umbrella term, encompassing a variety of conditions rather than a single disorder. (I have written more about this elsewhere.) During this time, I wa...
Read more

Evidence Against Trans?

  chatgpt & liz lucy robillard, April 21st, 2025 It's natural to want to protect women from harm, especially from serious threats like rape. Some argue that to prevent even one assault, trans women (biological males) should be excluded from female-only spaces like toilets and prisons.  While this comes from a place of caution, it doesn’t hold up under evidence or ethical scrutiny. *Studies consistently show that inclusive policies do not increase assault rates in restrooms or changing rooms* Trans women using female spaces *does not* correlate with higher risks of violence against cisgender women according to studies.  The idea that cis men might pretend to be trans to access women’s areas is *extremely rare* and laws already exist to punish such behavior.  Are those laws effective enough? On the other hand, trans women face high rates of violence when forced into male-designated spaces, especially in prisons or public areas.  Denying them access often puts ...
Read more

Honouring Abused Women

  The idea that vulnerability disqualifies you from safety is perverse. It’s a cruel inversion of morality, peddled by the very professions sworn to protect. Social workers (not all, but enough to matter), lawyers, psychiatrists, police—these institutions too often treat a traumatised woman as a nuisance, a liability, or worse, a fantasist. If you flinch, you’re dramatic. If you weep, you’re unstable. If you speak up, you’re paranoid. This grotesque logic renders a woman’s suffering not only invisible, but suspect. They do not ask, What happened to her? They ask, What is wrong with her? It’s psychiatry’s favourite bait-and-switch. Diagnoses fly like confetti—borderline, histrionic, treatment-resistant—as though medical jargon could smother the stench of misogyny. And the legal profession is no better. A woman under siege is told to document everything while her stalker moves freely, slipping through legal loopholes like grease through fingers. The solution is not to plead more pre...
Read more