Of course a judge does……what a silly comment. But during the oral argument on the Affordable Health Care Act Justice Scalia jokingly asked or mused that surely no one expected him to read all the Act in its entirety.  Given the fact that judges not infrequently get briefs with appendices that would take hours to carefully read, perhaps the honest answer is not so clear, but at least in the United States, there are few cases which directly address the responsibility of judges to read briefs or view evidence. Now there is a case out of Canada.

Canada’s highest court has defended the right of a judge to refuse to view graphic video in a child sex abuse case.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a precedent-setting ruling earlier this year, supported the decision of Justice Stephen Hunter, who refused to view video of a father having sex with his child before delivering a sentence in the sexual assault case.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld that decision Thursday, dismissing a request by the Crown to appeal the ruling.

“The Crown is disappointed that the Supreme Court has declined to hear this case,” Crown attorney Lee Burgess said.

The March decision by the Ontario appeal court judges garnered national headlines when the majority opinion upheld Hunter’s decision.

Hunter said he believed he knew the specifics of the case and that he had seen enough graphic sexual assault evidence as a former lawyer for the local children’s aid society. He said he didn’t need to see any more.

Hunter’s decision sparked debate over whether a judge is obligated to view all video evidence — disturbing or otherwise — before arriving at an appropriate sentence.