Judge Rinder

So we now know what Judge Judy would look like if she was a man.

So we’ve had a series of Judge Rinder now and it’s been met with an overall positive response.

Filmed I the studio next to The Jeremy Kyle Show, this was always a risk. Television judges have worked so well in the United States given that America has always had a more public forum approach to court proceedings in general.

The criticisms that have come up about this show seem to be centered around the failings of the court set and costumes not reflecting the British court system properly. While it is true that at small claims level, a judge in the UK will not be robed and will not generally hear the case in a full court (but rather in their chambers), I think this show is pretty much exactly what we need.

Yes, this show is not accurate in it’s representation of what a genuine small claims courts looks like in the UK, but let’s focus on the point of “courts” like this one. To give some context, like Judge Judy, Judge Rinder is an arbitrator, which is to say, he is someone who can settle legal issues outside court (arbitration being a form of alternative dispute resolution). I find it very strange that legal professionals have been criticising the mise-en-scene of program, while ignoring the fact that it’s dealing with an issue which every lawyer from student to Supreme Justice knows. The courts in this country have to hear too many cases. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is something the courts have been encouraging heavily in order to reduce their groaning workload and ensure that smaller cases can be dealt with faster. It also means that the really stupid cases can be heard outside a court and act as a kind of educational video to people who are considering suing people over really dumb issues. There was one case that Rinder heard in which a man had bought a pedigree Alsatian on some sort of finance deal and then accidentally got the thing killed when he threw it’s ball into the road and it was it by a van. Not only had this man refused to pay off the remainder of the finance, he was trying to recover the £12 he had spent on a spade to bury the animal, from the breeder in a counterclaim. Can you imagine what a waste of time it would have been for that to have been heard in a real court?

Yes, a small claims judge in a real court would not be as dramatic as Rinder is, but keeping the shows ratings up is the best way to ensure it survives. As long as the show survives it can keep doing what it’s doing. I can’t say I’m a fan of someone shouting (and in my opinion mispronouncing) the word “stupid” at litigants. But I’m even less a fan of morons who waste court time on trivial and ridiculous cases and would much rather see them turned into daytime entertainment.

As to the criticisms from the legal profession, I’m a bit confused by them. Why whine about the set and costume design, when there’s plenty of legitimate complaints to make. To name a few; we’ve got a criminal law specialist deciding cases of a purely civil nature; the fact that ITV pays any settlement awarded could undermine the interests of justice; the show is always weighted in the defendant’s favour, given that they have no financial loss no matter the outcome.

But no; let’s moan about the set design and the fact that he’s wearing robes over his suit; that’s probably the best way to avoid looking arrogant and antiquated.