The exercise of judicial discretion in rent arrears cases - Sheffield ...

court we observed sufficient cases distributed between eight judges for some data analysis
to be undertaken on the outcomes in this one court.
Qualitative observation in Northern 1 court
The first judge observed appeared keen to put tenants who had attended at ease, for
example in one case making a friendly remark about the football shirt a defendant was
wearing, while in another telling a defendant not to look so worried. The judge was also
happy for defendants' children to be present during the hearing. The judge took a
considerable amount of time to make each order, carefully considering the details of each
case, particularly those where a possession order had been requested and seeming very
reluctant to grant possession orders unless there was an indisputable case, instead
preferring to adjourn. Adjournments would often be made on the evidence of at least some
rent payment by the tenant in recent months, even if those payments had been sporadic.
The judge saw this as an indication that the tenant "was trying". In some cases the judge
also took into account the defendant’s family circumstances. If the defendant was present
the reasons for making an order and its terms would be explained. While underlining the
seriousness of the issue, the judge also made clear that the defendant would be in no
danger of losing their home if they adhered to the terms of the order made.
The second judge observed in Northern 1 court was a deputy, with less experience of both
possession hearings and of this particular court. This judge made orders on the basis of
less information than the first, only asking for further details if an outright possession order
was requested, or in some instances when the defendant was present at the hearing. This
judge seemed more willing simply to accept the request of the claimant's representative
without question and processed cases very quickly. The deputy judge’s manner was also
less affable than that of the first judge observed; on one occasion a defendant was
interrupted and an outright order made after hearing very few details about their
circumstances.
Thus Northern 1 court provided an opportunity to observe a contrast in judicial styles.
Although no more than anecdotal, the observation sessions and the cases recorded tend to
support the view that judicial approach affects outcomes, with the first judge adjourning more
cases and the second making more possession orders as requested by the claimant, which
in both sessions observed was the local authority.
33