A barrister who sits as a Recorder of the Crown Court has reportedly been arrested in connection with the Huhne/Pryce trial. I have no comment to make about that, but I do wish that the papers would stop referring to her as a judge. A Recorder is a part-time judge, paid by the day, who spends most of his or her time working as a lawyer (usually a barrister, but there are some solicitors too). I have seen her described as the most senior black judge, and similar nonsense.
Here is an eminent and senior judge, who happens to be black. I have met her, and she wears her achievements lightly.
"A recorder is a part-time judge" So a judge then?
ReplyDeleteLogic fail.
DeleteIs a part time footballer not a footballer?
I think Ewan below put it more eloquently than me before I retired to bed last night but that is the principal. As a part time judge they have the same powers as a circuit judge therefore IMHO is a judge.
DeleteI know nothing about the specifics of this case, but on the general principle, I'm not sure the complaint is fair.
ReplyDeleteIf you're trying to talk about someone's academic qualifications and they have a Phd you don't bother reeling off their GCSEs as well.
Similarly, if you're trying to make out that someone has been dishonest despite being in a position of trust, you just for for the greatest position of trust on their CV; if that's treasurer of the bowls club, then you go with that, if they're treasurer of the bowls club, a solicitor, and a judge, then you go with judge.
If the issue is probity (and I think it is here), I'm not sure that someone who acts as a judge occasionally should be expected to be any less trustworthy than someone who does it full time, so describing them as a judge makes perfect sense in this context.
Agreed - any judge, whether a recorder, a district judge, a county court judge, a crown court judge or a high court judge is still a judge. Withdraw while you're ahead, BS team!
ReplyDeleteHmm seem to be in agreement with posts so far. You are a Magistrate and sit part time but nevertheless are described as a Magistrate more often than a JP. Eventually if matters are substantiated she will be up before the Judicial Complaints Office.
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court recently decided a part-time judge is still a Judge when it comes to entitlement to a judicial pension!
ReplyDeletejudges come in all shapes and sizes, full and part time. They all have to follow the judicial code , even when not doing the judicial bit. Magistrates are judges , but of a particular kind. So I think it would be right to say the person in question is definitely a judge. However, this particular one has courted the media, not always the wiesest move, as those who live by the press can surely die by it. I will stop there as to go further would be inappropriate until che is charged.
ReplyDeleteSurely you mean "unless or until she is charged"?
DeleteActually, I think each of you would be well advised to remember that guilt or innocence is not decided until a verdict has been handed down.
DeleteKate Caveat
Pity a few more of the public, press and hoi-polli took a similar view.
DeleteInsinuation and innuendo are enough for the press to form the opinion of guilt; evidence is rarely required.
But not exactly a "top" judge as the tabloids have it surely?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Maria Eagle, as reported in Hansard on 4 December 2007, under the provisions of section 3 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 magistrates are officially considered as Crown Court judges when sitting on appeals from the magistrates' courts.
ReplyDeleteI am fascinated by Anonymous 27 February's assertion that JPs become Crown Court judges for the day when sitting on appeals, but cannot find the Hansard link - would he/she please direct me to it?
DeleteI have had this position explained to me in the past by a crown court judge. I found that ego massage difficult to reconcile with counsels' habit of addressing the bench not as "Your Honours", which would be logical, but as "Your Honour, Your Honour's Colleagues", which I suspect is a more accurate reflection of how magistrates are perceived by advocates.
DeleteJaguar, the easy way to access Hansard is through www.parliament.uk
DeleteChoose Publications & Reports, and then do a date or subject search.
I'm on an iPad, and there appears to be some misunderstanding between Blogger and Apple, as I find it impossible to copy/paste into reply or comment boxes.
Rather than reproduce character by character the whole long string of the relevant Hansard page, the easiest way for me of typing it in is to give you the They Work For You address: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-12-04d.170098.h
This should take you straight to the page in question.
Ian's perspicacious observation matches conventional practice (i.e. that established by convention & practice), and is not intended as an implied slight.
Thanks for the link to the Maria Eagle comment - something for a JP to tell his or her grandchildren!
DeleteOr even her / his children, perhaps. Not all JPs are old enough to have grandchildren!
DeleteKate Caveat
Sorry to be a week late with a boring comment, but in fact the highest in stature a 'lay' judge can have is as a lay member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. This ranks = to the High Court. Per Lawal v. Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35:
Delete13. The laymen sitting on a particular tribunal are all experienced in industrial relations. The judge, or part-time judge is normally assisted by two lay members: one from a panel drawn from employers and one drawn from a panel drawn from employees: see section 22(2) and section 25 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The wing members are never lawyers and have no legal training. On the other hand, their standing is high: it is currently the highest judicial appointment open to a person who holds no legal qualification.
My late papa would have been so proud to know that his beloved child had actully made it as a Crown Court judge!!
ReplyDeleteSince appeals from DJ(MC)s are heard by a circuit judge or recorder sitting with two magistrates, there is a lay element in all trials below Court of Appeal level.
ReplyDeleteAppeals can according to their nature be heard by between two and four justices and a judge (which is the official wording used; no distinction being drawn at this level between circuit judges or recorders, and indeed there are times when very much more senior members of the judiciary have sat on appeals from the magistrates' courts). I've never managed to discover any official ruling on what would happen in that event that three justices sat with a judge and there was a two / two split. It is most unusual to have more than two justices sitting anyway.
DeleteThe Court of Appeal does not hear trials, nor indeed does the Supreme Court.
DeleteAlso, there is of course no lay element in Magistrates' Court trials heard before a DJ.
Senior Courts Act 1981 s.73(3): "Where a judge of the High Court, Circuit judge or Recorder sits with justices of the peace ........if the members of the court are equally divided, the judge of the High Court, Circuit judge or Recorder shall have a second and casting vote".
DeleteTTVM (which my daughter tells me means "ta, ta, very much" - if I've 'done a Dave', would someone please gently put me right!). Sub Rosa has once again helped provide the answer to a question I've long pondered but never actively sought to resolve.
DeleteWhile you're about it, could you do something about the constant portrayal in the popular media of judges and magistrates incesently hammering on the desk with a gavel?
ReplyDeletehttp://magistratesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2005/01/it-makes-me-mad.html and many posts since.
DeleteSoon to be an ex-judge? Chose your friends more carefully seems to be the motto here.
ReplyDeleteJaded
See above: you appear to be pre-judging the outcome of any OJC hearing, let alone any criminal proceedings.
DeleteKate Caveat
"She's a Judge you say"
ReplyDelete"Yes that's right, sits in the Crown Court for 20 days a year and is a Barrister for the other 345"
"So a Judge for about 5% of the year and a Barrister for 95% of the year"
"Yes"
"Oh"
It's makes for a more exciting story to call her a Judge than a Barrister despite it being a very small part of her work.
I'm sure that those of you who sit describe yourself by your occupation rather than 'a Magistrate' when asked what you do.
I get just as cross as the BS Team when she's referred to as 'Top Female Judge' or 'Top Ethnic Minority Judge' or 'Top Female Minority Judge' given that (a) she sits for 20 days a year in a part-time capacity and (b) all of the monikers above belong to someone else.
For the record
Top Female Judge - Full-time Judicial office holders: Baroness Hale in the Supreme Court. Mr Justice Dobbs in the High Court and a number of Crown Court Judges
Top Ethnic Minority Judge - Mrs Justice Dobbs or Mr Justice Singh. Many Crown Court Judges from ethnic minority backgrounds
Top Minority Female Judge - as set out by BS team in this post, Mrs Justice Dobbs. There are a number of female Judges from minority backgrounds, HHJ Karu as an example.
As for gavels, it's the only topic I have emailed BBC News about more than their various descriptions of the recent arrested Judge, I mean Barrister, oh dear I'm doing it now.
Thanks, Kate. Wise words as ever. Team BS should rope you in (a woman's perspective might temper some of the worst excesses of the male culture that continues to abound - I still recall the "flame-headed" Ms Brookes "tossing her locks" in the dock).
ReplyDeleteSister Sue
P.S. Credit where it's due. Bystander has been a consistent critic of TV programmes etc. that depict gavels in court.
The Bystander Massive is an equal-opportunities outfit. Why doesn't Kate send me an email? Bystander K is an available tag.......
DeleteThis belief regarding gavels stems from American TV series portraying their view of the UK.
DeleteIn the early 1970s an episode of 'The Six Million Dollar Man' had a character supposedly in London in a phone box calling America without once feeding any coins into the slot.
The film 'U-571' depicted the Americans being the first to capture an Enigma machine. The director tried to justify this by answering 'Why let facts get in the way of the story?'
Thank you kindly. I am not by nature a joiner of 'gangs' (as I discover 'massive' to mean), but am flattered by the invitation.
DeleteKate Caveat
P.S. In a neat twist, I live next door to an H.M.S. Bulldog crewman (who really was involved in the capture not just of an Enigma machine but of its codebooks). He gets understandably quite excitable when mention is made of 'U-571'!
Arthimetic is a bit suspect here. The sitting year is about 220 days per year, so if she does 20 then just under 10 of her professional time would be judging and the rest well, who knows. But a lot of part times - like mags, do many more.
Delete"Judge" sells papers and "lawyer" does not. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteMy thought exactly.
DeleteCongratulations to everyone involved in this thread - it made me laugh out loud this morning! This is exactly why the Bystander blog remains the top legal one; keep it up.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone on this blog read her 'autobiography'? Do you really know anything about her?
ReplyDeleteI've read both her books, and much else besides. I don't know exactly what to believe, but do know that a libel jury found for her and against her mother as regards her account of childhood abuse. She's certainly not 'ugly' but appears still to perceive herself that way (the word figured in both book titles). I don't know anything more than what I've read about her. The sadness I feel at the unravelling of so many lives as a result of a man trying to avoid disqualification was only compounded when I learnt that yet another person had become entangled in this sorry tale. I wonder whether her friendship with Vicky Pryce will survive.
DeleteGoing back to the female judges thread, it should be of concern that of the three judges appointed to the Supreme Court last week, not one was a female. President Lord Neuberger has expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court still has only one woman among its 12 members. That contrasts sharply with the 25,000-strong magistracy, which at the last count (April 2012) was comprised of 51.3% female JPs, 48.7% male.
DeleteSeems she is to be charged now and rightly so. Maybe more material Bystander?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22875993