What is a ‘non-full-time’ judge

THE EDITOR: Thank you, Mr Karl Hudson-Phillips QC, for having responded in such detail to my letter questioning a sitting judge’s ability to act as an advocate in a court of law (for readers who may have missed my original letter, it referred to a sitting judge of the International Criminal Court).” My understanding is that at present you are not a sitting judge but rather a “non-full-time” judge of the ICC. Your response is sincerely appreciated. Out of academic interest and to add finality to this matter could you or a member of your profession, clarify what is meant by a “non-full-time” judge? Is it a term that is applicable only to the ICC at its present stage of development? If it is an acknowledged term, how would you respond to the following?

Where an indefinite waiting period exists before the first case comes to court — ie the ICC — for trial, shouldn’t a “non-full-time” advocate who, in his/her private capacity acts in advisory roles, be the precursor to a full-time judge? In spite of the fact that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 40 (3) states: “Judges required to serve on a full-time basis at the seat of the court shall not engage in any other occupation of a professional nature,” the waiting period allows a full-time advocate in one country to be a “non-full-time” judge on the international circuit. What would be the ICC’s position if such a “non-full-time” appointee lost a case in his country’s jurisdiction? It would indeed be gratifying if former President A N R Robinson, a founder of the ICC would express an opinion on this matter.

RAZZMAN IVAN
Port-of-Spain