Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Wish I Had Been There


I am grateful to Crime Line for pointing me to this fascinating transcript  of a Divisional Court hearing before Sir John Thomas and Mr. Justice Globe. The hapless counsel (who was specifically assured that his own conduct was in no way subject to criticism) was briefed to present an application for judicial review on behalf of a client of a very well known specialist (and rich) motoring solicitor.

The remarks of Thomas LJ are scathing to say the least, and I was particularly interested because I have met His Lordship, and heard him in action (albeit in a large meeting rather than in court) when he carried out one of the most comprehensive demolition jobs I have ever seen on an unfortunate delegate who put forward an ill-thought out proposal. Reading between the lines of the transcript, I could feel his Lordship's rising incredulity at the arguments being put before him, and I truly felt for counsel who must, towards the end, have known how General Custer would have felt.

Sir John is a cheerful looking Welshman, with tufts of silver hair but the cheerfulness seems to have deserted him on this occasion.

The report is quite a long one, but I think it's well worth a read.

23 comments:

  1. I'm grateful to _you_ for giving the link to the transcript. However, some connected to the case may think you a (inaudible) for linking to it.

    I'm interested in the way the English and Welsh legal system is separating as Welsh devolution and autonomy progresses. When - as seems inevitable - the Welsh get their "Brif Ustus" (Chief Justice), will the somewhat unfortunately named Roger John Thomas throw his wig in the ring for that office?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am very glad not to have been the advocate at that hearing. On on.the face of it the judge's comments seem well-founded. I might often think that motoring law is oppressive to motorists, but this kind of conduct by Mr Freeman and othes like him does not reflect well on the legal professi

    ReplyDelete
  3. As one who once found himself successfully appealed against by way of case stated by the gentleman in question, I took great pleasure in reading this transcript. Than you BS for linking to it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That should, of course read "Thank you BS..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is reports such as this, drawing our attention to case law and higher court judgements, which underline just how important legal blogs are to other members of the judiciary such as ourselves. I cannot imagine JCs disseminating such judgements to their benches, and how else would we find them? Top marks to you BS, and let's hope the next meeting of the Magistrates' Liaison Group can persuade the Senior Presiding Judge to retract.

      Delete
    2. Keeping up with the law stuff (which is literally a full-time job) is probably best left to the legal adviser. I would suggest that believing you are legally well-informed on the basis of reading the occasional thing off a blog would lead to a misplaced overconfidence. Your opinion may differ.

      Delete
    3. My opinion does differ. Legal advisers are not omnipotent, and I have very occasionally been given totally wrong advice in the past. In any case it is useful to know enough of the law to be able to ask the LA relevant questions and understand the answers. Sitting as a JP while knowing nothing of the law would be like trying to do surgery on the basis of someone reading you out a text book.

      Hypophetically speaking that is, if I were a JP

      Delete
  5. Oh the joys of sitting with judges whose lips can be far more unfettered than a humble JP.

    For which reason I recommend sitting on CC appeals to all of my colleagues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes. I remember sitting with one of the few female CC judges as she delivered our decision to the hapless appellant with the words, "There is a word for you Bloggs, and that word is toerag. And when, as you inevitably will, you breach this order, you will come back to me and then you will go to prison."

      Delete
  6. 117 mph? He should have been caged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please, Seamaster, not 'caged'. That's a 'Sun' word. You can do better, I am sure.

      Delete
    2. Quite right. I should have said "gassed".

      Delete
    3. Issue the ancient common law writ of de clave sanguinari abiacienda - throw the bloody key away!

      Delete
  7. Love it - love it... And about time too...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I actually felt sorry for the barrister in the case (Mr George). In the circumstances, I think he did remarkable job in keeping up a semblance of rationality. All credit to him (and a hearty cheer for LJ Thomas and his colleague).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for that,mind you the A34 goes just pass my house and I live in Oxford.
    John Gibson

    ReplyDelete
  10. As a layman, I cannot see why anyone (who can afford Mr Loophole) should fight a motoring offence that results in a fine and a ban.

    Surely they have the funds to hire someone to act as chauffeur for the term of the disqualification.

    Or is it a man thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's an entitlement thing.

      There are a large number of people out there who think that their wealth and/or their background excuses them from having to follow the rules that the rest of us (not always happily) accept as being part of society.

      You only need to witness the recent examples re: tax avoidance/evasion to see this in action in an equally pernicious form.

      Delete
    2. They may be having very confidential telephone discussions in the car and could not possibly trust any chauffeur to keep them confidential, according to Tony Pulis, manager of Stoke City.

      Delete
  11. There's a report here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176874/Nick-Freeman-Judge-accuses-celebrity-lawyer-Mr-Loophole-sharp-practice-speeding-case.html

    OK, it's the Daily Mail, so maybe a pinch of sodium chloride is needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like a bucketload. Who reads the Daily Hate Mail to learn the truth?

      Delete
  12. My Oh My. I bet (in the immortal words of Sam Vimes) Mr George had damp socks at the end of that one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have folowed this blog with much interest. This particular item was quickly followed by publicity arising out of an interview with Lady magasine that advanced the proposition that it's easier to find loopholes for women than men because women are more emotional.
    I have represented drivers for years and am increasingly dismayed by the way some of the work is done, and promoted. Much of it is undertaken quietly and out of the public gaze, but the concern is that all road traffic practitioners are seen as tactitions. This is not so.
    I have written a blog item which might be of interest, and its on my web site:

    www.motorists-lawyer-kent.co.uk

    David Barton Solicitor Advocate

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.