Decisions on whether to bring a case to court are made by evaluating the evidence,
if there is more than a 50 per cent chance of convicting the accused, that is good
enough, the prosecution will go ahead. How you get treated in our courts depends
on your standing in the eyes of the judge, defendants under the British justice system
can not be guaranteed a fair trial. The notion that judges are impartial is pervasive
and unreal, it is supposed to sustain our faith in the British legal system.
The grandees
of our justice system dismiss miscarriages of justice as the sole fault of the police
or the jury and campaigners against injustice as politically motivated. Cynicism
abounds. Judges see themselves as guardians of law and order and influence events
accordingly. Judges, recruited from the profession of barristers, miss participation
in the fight and fall in behind the prosecution, the judge will always prefer the
police account unless the defence case is overwhelming.
Some judges will weigh up
a case and even pit themselves against the lawyers to secure what they consider to
be the correct outcome. The judge will usually get his own way with his “twelve good
men and true.” Judges control the legal profession as well as the courtroom and can
influence the advance or otherwise of barristers. It is inevitable that this will
have an impact on the conduct in the courtroom.
In one instance (1990 approximately)
a judge in a murder trial at intervals acquired companions on the bench. His own
clerk dressed in a tail coat, the High Sheriff of the county in knickerbockers and
sword, the High Sheriff’s wife and the judge’s wife. All there to enjoy the spectacle,
never mind the accused. At an earlier trial the wife of a judge sat alongside her
husband. When the defendants were acquitted she was heard to say, “what a disgusting
verdict.” In a court in the north it was said that if your client was up for sentence
before a certain High Court Judge, Thursday afternoons were your best time for leniency
because his wife had a regular appointment at the hairdresser’s.
Four out of five
full time judges are the product of public schools and Oxbridge universities. These
superior human beings have little in common with those they sentence. The retirement
age of judges is 70 years old, their average age is between 60 and 65 years of age.
In March 1991 only one judge in a total of 550 was black, one Lord Justice, two High
Court judges and nineteen circuit judges were female. In 1991 82 percent of practising
barristers in England and Wales were men. The Bar is not an easy place for women,
you have to enjoy the taste of blood.
Many Barristers love the wig and gown, it is
part of the elitism of the profession and distinguishes them from that mere mortal;
the solicitor advocate. Dressing up in wigs and gowns and court language intimidate
witnesses and the defendant, in the face of articulate lawyers self-consciousness
interferes with their ability to give evidence. A large amount of dramatic licence
operates, defendants are often judged on grounds which have nothing whatsoever to
do with the facts of the case.
A large number of Barristers are civil practitioners
who act in the capacity of consultant, preparing a brief. Parts of the Bar are also
snobbish, as though there is something contagious about the clientele. The Bar has
a ‘cab rank’ principle of taking on all comers but even so mud can stick and be detrimental
to the career of the defender in certain cases, no matter that criminal advocacy
is crucial because the liberty of the subject is at stake. Every barrister is asked
how they feel about representing someone who is guilty but surely it is representing
those who are innocent and so often found guilty that should induce sleepless nights.
The
Inns of Court - Lincolns, Grays, Middle Temple and Inner Temple are the four old-established
training centres for barristers and their (working place) Chambers. Started in the
14th century, they enjoy the sole right to admit, train and control the profession.
Described as a survival of mediaeval oligarchy, the Inns are governed by the Benchers
- who choose their fellows and successors. As a requisite for being called to the
Bar the student must eat 24 dinners in the Inn’s Hall, the professions club. This
Hall represents the heart of life as a Bar student. The idea behind this anachronistic
process of dining is that it creates a camaraderie amongst the profession and helps
secure a place as a pupil or tenant. Patronage is an insidious feature.
The buffoonery
that accompanies these meals is supposed to hone their court skills. Some poor unfortunate
is picked on and subjected to a debate of ridicule, their embarrassment and humiliation
(especially if they are a woman) supplies entertainment. Good training for what is
to come.
In the scramble up the professional ladder becoming a Queen’s Council (QC)
- also known as a “Silk”, is an important milestone and a recognition of seniority.
A successful barrister will consider applying after around 20 years. Like everything
else in British law it is a secret process and involves applying to the Lord Chancellor.
As with judicial appointments your standing is assessed by those already appointed.
No reason is given for refusal, if you are not “one of them” you will not be welcome.
Prejudice, privilege and “old boy” nepotism will prevail.
Note by Tom Watkins.
As ever, our masters play and their servants pay. I like period drama when it is on TV but this is ridiculous.
I bought the book "The Justice Game" by Geoffrey Robertson QC, a newspaper said it was recommended as a good read by Jack Straw, the Home Secretary. Wow! The extent to which those in the hate, spite and vengeance industry were willing to go to get someone convicted was there to be seen. However if that book was a cracker, "Eve was Framed" turned out to be absolute dynamite. It upset me so much I found it hard to read. Eventually I took up pen and pad and started to make notes, the above article came from just the start to this book
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org
Judges & Barristers
Editing by Tom Watkins
An article culled from the Introduction and first two chapters of the book “Eve was Framed” by Helena Kennedy QC. The start to this book blows the gaff on the people responsible for British injustice.
Guilty