I can refer you to another piece I wrote on a vastly different subject, but in which your own point is well illustrated: endlesschain.substack.c….

In my translation career, I have translated a total of two "deeds of repute". These are legal deeds which aim to constitute evidence of a fact required for succession purposes, but of which there is no official record. So, you state the facts you want to "exist" in a notarised document and have it witnessed. The "repute" becomes "fact".

The first of these was Moroccan, written in French and Arabic. I was surprised when, at the end, there came no fewer than 20 signatures. When you think about it, a deed of repute sets down in written form something that "everybody knows". And, if everybody knows it, then surely 20 people know it? Moroccan society is very close knit, so the drafters of this legal requirement will never have doubted that, if such a deed were needed, 20 people could easily be found to attest to it.

The second such document was notarised in Luxembourg. It bore the more customary two signatures. The two signatories were both clerks in the notary public's office. I know, because it said so. Now, I know Luxembourg is a small place, but this is a coincidence too far. I think the clerks perjured themselves.

I don't know, but I don't think you will easily get 20 Moroccans all to perjure themselves. But two clerks in the office of the notary drafting the deed and paying their wages? That, I think, is feasible.

And one judge sitting up high on their bench? The invocation of the Belgian Criminal Code (it repeats often in that legislation) is to determine "the truth". No court of law determines truth. It's in the rules of evidence: in civil cases, decisions are handed down on the "balance of probability", so the amount of truth that's needed is, mathematically, 51 per cent. In criminal causes, the test is "beyond reasonable doubt", so that does not exclude doubt, it just excludes that doubt that is unreasonable. But it still isn't 100 per cent. So, courts don't seek truth, in truth. They seek "enough" truth.

Now, whether a single judge is equipped ever to discern "enough" truth is a matter for discussion, and there you and I disagree. I think a judge can find enough truth to rule on a case. And it is that ability that governments don't like. They don't want "truth", nor do they want "enough truth"; they want "our truth".

Magna Carta is a very old document, and was drawn up not for legal reasons but for political reasons. I wouldn't envy the dental care of 1215, nor the lack of flushing toilets. And, if I'm honest, I'm not sure I'd want to practise law in those times, either.

Thank you for your engagement.