With Christmas looming, two additional temptations arise: easing off on things that matter, and celebrating before there is true finality.
Most people, if asked how long a rugby game is, will reply “80 minutes”, and technically they may be correct. The All Blacks, however, have learned that a rugby game is closer to 100 minutes: fifteen minutes before kick-off to set the mind and body in harmony, and five minutes after the referee’s final whistle to display one’s character. Sadly, there have been instances where the latter has proven true — but not befitting of a world-class team.
After a World Cup game that went into overtime and was lost to the South African Springboks, Jonah Lomu was among a minority of New Zealanders who stayed on the field to acknowledge the opposition. Jonah had been well taught.
The last few minutes of any event can be the most significant. An extreme example: the death of a person in war is tragic, but imagine the escalation of emotion for those whose loved one is killed after the final whistle. Vigilance should not stop immediately simply because someone in charge says so.
On a lesser scale, a highly respected colleague was leaving work to establish their own clinic. It was suggested they finish a few hours early on their final day — they deserved that. Instead, the colleague worked until five past five, an open display of character.
For those on the receiving end of a judge’s findings, a planned and definitive conclusion is equally prized. This is not to say that a planned early exit should never occur — the emphasis is on it being mastered, not drifted into. It takes little imagination to see how this relates to health: any judicial easing before a promised conclusion can become the affected parties’ dis-ease. Judges are not the only people judging — people also judge judges by the evidence they see.
Several professions rely on evidence.
A wide range of professionals across numerous fields rely heavily on evidence to make informed, objective, and effective decisions:
Healthcare and medicine
Science and research
Business and technology
Education and social services
Law and criminal justice
Judicial evidence is central to the legal system, where outcomes are determined by the strength and validity of the information presented.
Lawyers and judges analyse evidence, research case law, draft legal arguments, and make rulings based on factual evidence and legal precedents. Law enforcement officers and detectives collect and document evidence, conduct investigations, and write reports to solve crimes and ensure public safety. Forensic scientists and crime scene investigators analyse physical evidence (DNA, fingerprints, etc.) to provide objective findings for legal proceedings.
Judicial evidence, however, is interpreted differently from scientific evidence. Scientists may have a lifetime to assimilate information before making a proclamation; a judge may have seconds to assess, absorb, or discard. Brevity is a fundamental attribute of judges.
Why the term “brief” is used:
Summary and abridgement: A “brief of evidence” is intended to condense full testimony or all intended evidence into a formal written statement. This allows the court and opposing parties to review core information efficiently.
Efficiency: Briefs streamline the judicial process by identifying contested issues and avoiding unnecessary prolongation of proceedings.
Witness statements: In some jurisdictions, including New Zealand, a brief of evidence is often taken as read, with the witness then cross-examined.
It is a common legal joke that a “brief” is anything but brief. Nonetheless, the original intent was concision.
Continuing the rugby analogy, professions that accumulate and analyse evidence could be termed the Tight Five, while judges are the wingers — holding the ball briefly before scoring the winning try.
This leads us into the Christmas theme, with room for a little frivolity.
A belief system is both the start and finish of all we do. The toughest selection process in the world, SAS selection, strips candidates of everything but their identity — the part of the mind where instinctive impulses and primary processes reside. To survive, one must possess an unbroken belief system. When belief fails, failure soon follows.
We may not always appreciate our own belief systems or the principles that should hold true in all circumstances. Let us test this against our letters to Santa, written when we were devoted, implacable young believers.
We wrote with expectation, and reward usually followed on Christmas Day — the doll, the bike, the Lego set, the book beyond the budget, or more lollies than could be healthily consumed. Santa was a benefactor who matched belief with delivery.
Gradually, belief eroded — often courtesy of that schoolyard spoiler who knew too much about Saint Nick and everything else. Requests diminished until the present day (pun intended), where belief in Santa and Christmas is balanced more like a receipt — aligned, reasonable, and measured, like the scales of justice.
Belief, truth, and reward are intertwined. Enduring success and health come from never over-promising and always slightly over-delivering. Leaders who leave society healthier than they found it earn trust — belief follows naturally.
Trust in the judiciary is an ongoing battle to retain moral ground. As we know, trust and belief can be lost in an instant through postponement, procrastination, deviation, or failure to close the deal. Near the end of any mission, effort is often fatiguing, yet the rewards of finishing well compensate.
Better to enter the Christmas holidays as a winner than with regret. Ask any All Black whether they would prefer to finish their last game of the season ahead at 100 minutes or behind at 80.
In the absence of Father Christmas personally signing off our missions, concluding the year as a winner — bringing Christmas joy all round — is a deeply satisfying and healthy gift to oneself, one that lasts far longer than anything found in a stocking.