Judges, judging and humour [Book review]

Abstract

The courtroom is, perhaps surprisingly frequently, the site of interludes, interruptions – prone to frustration or humour when the not-so-consistently-well-oiled machinery of justice lets loose a protesting screech or an all-too-embodied human caught in the machine lets out a fart. Indeed, this sharpened incongruity may heighten its impact. However, the play within the rigid structures and formality of the law is usually effectively contained (Roach Anleu and Milner Davis, 23), and humour therefore would appear to be a ‘limited exception’ (Moran, 214). Moreover, such incidents rarely make it into the case records and transcripts – yet they may survive with a vengeance in a kind of oral tradition, magnified and transformed in the retelling (Davies). This is precisely the stuff Milner Davis and Roach Anleu’s volume pursues, alongside more ‘official’ matters such as swearing-in speeches and caselaw about humour. The volume testifies to a complexity that opens up in a rich array of possible directions. [Excerpt]