Can a judge err in reasoning, what is remedy?

 A judge reasons from the record. The facts proved set the factual limits. The issues framed set the analytical limits. The law, as identified and interpreted, sets the legal limits, while the constitution provides the framework within which that reasoning must operate. [iStockphoto]

A judge may err on the facts. He may err on the law. Both are familiar grounds of appeal. But a more exacting question arises. Where the facts are clear, and the applicable law is equally clear, can a judge still err in reasoning?

Legal reasoning can be described as the bridge between the material before the court and the conclusion reached. It is the process by which the court moves from the facts and the issues through the applicable law to reach a sound decision; it is the thread that stitches the facts, the issues, and the law into a coherent whole.