So, will there be a difference?

The point in seeking to bridge the gap between legal theory and legal practice and evolve a comprehensive perception of the judicial role is that it would make a difference in practice. Changes in the judicial process and judicial methodology should eventuate. But is this wishful thinking? Would acceptance of the conception of the judicial role and approach I have advanced do much more, if anything, than make overt in judicial conduct and reasoning that which is already being done covertly? Will the desired changes in attitude and practice occur in any event? What would the main differences be if more and more judges adopted the judicial methodology I have put forward? These questions can be briefly addressed in this penultimate chapter.

Making overt that which is covert

Certainly, acceptance of the recommended methodology would make overt much that is presently been done by judges covertly. I do not doubt for one moment that those judges who are coerced, condemned or otherwise persuaded to read this book will frequently have said to themselves; ‘Well, I already do that’, or ‘That [criticism] may be so of other judges, but it is not true of me.’ Judges do not admit to be lacking in realism, pragmatism, creativity, common sense, a sense of justice or any of the other attributes I have extolled.