Please, allow me space to response to my friend Mr. Andrew Horea's article on this topic. I'm making this response because he specifically mentioned my name and raising a question to me.

Firstly, I agree with Mr. Horea that Courts are not immune to public criticism. But my article was focusing on criticism of the Court's decision rather than the Court itself.

If my friend, Mr. Horea read my article properly, he would have notice I did not mention that Courts' decisions should not be criticized by the public. I stressed that if Mrs. Kauhue or any person for that matter wants to criticize a Court decision in the future, the best approach is to read the judgment or be in Court before making the criticism.

A balance, well-informed and constructive criticism is vital in this sense because it becomes public information when it is publish in papers like this. There are people who digested that information, maybe for the purpose of general knowledge or for future reference, the point is they used it. Again, it is vital because we might paint a picture which is far from the truth about something, in this case the Court. Therefore, get the other side of the story and you will make a very constructive criticism. But don't bark just because it is dark. You will only find yourself in a ridicule position. Bark because an intruder is back. Only then you'll have a good reason to bark.

Secondly, I understand and I do not expect all the people who read a Court's decision to understand the mumbo jumbo reasoning of the Court. However, I believe that if you want to criticize a Court decision get a fair idea of the decision before making your criticism (I believe it is applicable to everything). You don't have to be a lawyer. As long you have the fair idea of the Court's decision that is a good starting point. Making a criticism when you are not well-informed with the issues is just as good as not making a criticism at all. How are you going to transmit proper and substantive information in your criticism when you are not even well-versed with what you want to criticize? Otherwise, we will be feeding our society, particularly readers of this paper, with garbage information. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. This is just common sense.

Thirdly, technically lawyers criticize Court decisions more often than the criticisms that appear in the media. They do this through the appeal process where they appeal to the higher Courts if they disagree with the decision. Unfortunately, my friend, lawyers rarely criticizes or describes a Court decisions as bias or unjust in media.

In conclusion, I appreciate Mr. Andrew Horea and the other writers for taking interest in this topic.