done rigorously, accurately and carefully in the first place, then injustice which flows is almost incapable of correction thereafter. It is essential, if injustices are to be avoided, at that very first point, wherever it may be – on an atoll or island or mountain town or a modern city –every party has to be able to get out their story, to be challenged about it, to hear the other side’s story and c hallenge it, so that facts can be found with reliability and equity. But  how  do  we  achieve  this  when,  in  many  of  these  Courts,  there  will  seldom  be lawyers  and,  when  there  are  lawyers,  they  are  often  people  who  lack  the  experience, skill and knowledge to really present the case as it should be so as to exploit the greatest advantage which can be obtained for the party they represent.    It’s  pie  in  the  sky  to  suggest  legal  aid  systems  so  comprehensive  that  there  would  be relevant  professionals  all  the  time  in  every  one  of  these  Courts.    So  what  then  is  the Judge or Magistrate to do when confronted by a person who is unrepresented, or even worse, represented by a person who is harming, not helping, their client’s position?    Our systems are predicated on the basis of a neutral Judge in an adversarial system. The unspoken premise is that each side has competent equally experienced counsel so that the Court can be satisfied that the case, in all its manifestations, is being exposed so the true factual position can be determined.  But as you all know more often than not that is not the case.