SPEAK YOUR MIND IF YOU DARE

An uncommon outburst on a public forum  from  an apparently serving J.P. over the retirement age.  I would hazard a guess that this person is indeed now retired from the bench.  If he is still serving, which is highly unlikely unless the reporter has his age wrong, I would imagine an appointment has probably been made with his justices` clerk in the first instance to discuss his future.

SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES

A little publicised report from a current trial at the Inner London Crown Court deserves a mention.  The trial is that of Gibert Deya a self styled “archbishop”, born in Kenya, who is accused of rape, attempted rape, sexual assault and battery.  The witness, a Sierra Leonean,   who claimed she was raped gave evidence for a full hour with repeated promptings from lawyers to speak more clearly,   before a court official also from that country, informed the court that she (the witness) was not speaking English or at least any dialect which could reasonably be assumed to be English.   My point today is how could a judge who must, one can assume, have been in the same difficulties as the lawyers in failing to comprehend the witness, fail to intervene and order the question of her language to be investigated.  My conclusion  is that until the timely intervention of the court clerk it would appear that all and sundry were afraid to be denounced as that all encompassing worst of all epithets; “racist”.  Will the judge`s non intervention be subject to a complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints ?...........I suppose  you can guess my opinion.  I would add a corollary.  Owing to the situation and making a pragmatic decision albeit overdue  the judge swore in the court clerk as a temporary interpreter.  I recollect very clearly during a trial many years ago when the Arab witness was stumbling over a few phrases and I authorised a native Arabic speaker on the bench to help him over a few sentences.  At the post trial review I was criticised by the legal advisor.  I told her that she was going too far and if she wanted to report my action I would defend myself at any level.  That was the end of the matter.   

A STATISTICAL ANOMALY

Yesterday`s all day sitting was a statistical anomaly.  Forgetting the imperious terminology it was highly unusual.  We had two trials listed for the morning and similarly for the p.m. sitting.  

 Anomaly #1.  There was no overlisting.  Each was scheduled one and a half hours.

Anomaly #2.  At 10.00a.m. were present and ready to proceed one CPS prosecutor, one defence counsel, one defendant, one complainant and one police officer.

Anomaly #3.  At 11.45a.m. present and ready to proceed were one (the unchanged) CPS prosecutor, one defence solicitor, one defendant  and one complainant. 

Anomaly #4.  We rose at 1.05p.m. and enjoyed almost a whole hour to relax and to reflect that we had not had to endure a moment`s downtime.

Anomaly #5.  At 2.00p.m. with a new L/A in her place we entered the courtroom to be faced with a defendant already standing in the dock awaiting identification, a smiling CPS prosecutor silently acknowledging her being recognised by the bench and defence counsel making some hurried notes and confirming she had been able to see the prosecution CCTV footage on her laptop. Both parties confirmed they were ready to proceed.

Anomaly #6.  At c 3.15p.m. having sentenced the previous defendant the dock was, within two minutes,  occupied by the fourth defendant of the day with his solicitor almost immediately on his feet to request an adjournment which was opposed by CPS and refused by the bench.  Having heard evidence from complainant, police officer and defendant  and deliberating for ten minutes sentencing concluded at 4.45p.m.

Anomaly #7.  No matters were put over to another day.

Will such a day happen again during my remaining time on the bench?  As I said at the start of this post; the day was a statistical anomaly.

HOW DID THEY BRING THE NEWS?

Over  my years on the bench I have been convinced by what I have seen and heard  that nowhere is there a more politically correct organisation.  That having been said I would have thought that all participants, professional and lay, would always apply a virtual five second delay to any remarks made in the retiring room and certainly those made from the bench.  I was wrong!  The crass remarks of Deputy District Judge Richard Terrence Peter Hollingworth are almost beyond belief. What is of some interest is that the incident took place in October yet appeared only this weekend in the public press. 

I SPRANG to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;

I gallop’d, Dirck gallop’d, we gallop’d all three;

“Good speed !” cried the watch, as the gate-bolts undrew;

“Speed!” echoed the wall to us galloping through;

Behind shut the postern, the lights sank to rest,              

And into the midnight we gallop’d abreast.

STICKING PLASTER POLICIES

The fiasco at the MOJ regarding the award of a new contract for interpreter services to a twopenny   halfpenny company only to be sold on a couple of weeks later to Capita plc was our first insight into the total incompetence of those senior civil servants at Petty France.  Their public humiliation at the hands of the Public Accounts Committee is a most enduring piece of fly on the wall T.V. and is even more entertaining than the fictional “Yes Minister”.  Of even more significance is the report in the Law Society Gazette in which the Permanent Secretary admits that no research was done into the effects which would follow cuts to civil legal aid.

The failings over the last four years at the MOJ and the Home Office must surely reach back to the occupant at number 10.  But hold on!   All the good old British public is concerned with is its free at the point of use NHS.  So come next May all will be well with that extra £2 billion while the core of our society is held together with sticking plaster.