confront and respond to them, will make hollow our commitment to the high ideals with which we have been challenged.  In practice these justice ideals are only attainable by a minute fraction of our populations, in fact only by a small elite. First there is the conundrum of unrepresented and under represented litigants. In most of our  countries  we  have  arrangements  whereby,  at  the  top  end  of  the  Courts  hierarchy, lawyers    will    generally    be    participating    either    through    some    sort    of    legal    aid arrangement,  or  because  the  litigants  (who  are  often  corporate)  have  the  economic ability to meet the costs involved.  That is, of course, commendable and important, but although  it  is  not  fashionable  to  say  so,  I  have  held  a  firm  view  throughout  my  legal career that what happens at first instance is really more important than what happens in the  tiny  handful  of  cases  which  get  an  appellate  hearing  or  an  ultimate  hearing  in  a multi- level court system.    That  is  not  to  minimise  the  importance  of  the  ultimate  determination.  There  should  not be an either/or dichotomy. However, we need to fully appreciate that the vision of the rule of law and the delivery of human rights means these fundamental norms have to be capable of being asserted or called in aid at all levels. What happens in the first hearing is critical. What is the core of an originating hearing?  At its fundament, it is the opportunity for each  side  to  assert  the  facts  upon  which  they  want  relief  or  restraint  and  the  ability  to challenge   and   be   challenged   about   alternative   interpretations.      For   many   courts – Magistrates’ Courts, District Courts and other tribunals at first instance  – they don’t do a lot of law.  But these places do the factual assessment and determination. If that is not