Tacheless
I had a bit of fun growing another absurd tache to confuse visiting tourists – who did stare at me. I was even photographed while reading my newspapers by a couple of elderly Canadians who asked me directions and told me that I had a ‘cute accent’…whatever that is. Perhaps I shouldn’t have told them that I was descended from Vercingetorix (I’m not) and the tache was a family trait. I enjoy talking to people who come and talk to me – even if I cannot always guarantee that I will talk sense. Anyway – tacheless until Winter comes upon us again when I may go for a Scott of The Antarctic look. Now… a bit of Law…
Results of Cherie Blair inquiry ‘were covered up’
The Independent reports: The body which investigates complaints against judges has been accused of covering up the full extent of an investigation into Cherie Blair over her decision to hand down a lenient sentence to a convicted man because he was “a religious person”. An investigation into Mrs Blair, who is a devout Roman Catholic, was launched earlier this year by the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) following a request from the National Secular Society (NSS), which argued that a person’s religious conviction should not be used as a mitigating factor during sentencing.
….Mrs Blair explained that she was giving Mr Miah a two-year suspended sentence, instead of a six-month jail term, because he was “a religious person” who had not been in trouble before.
Following the NSS’s complaint, the OJC released a two-paragraph statement on 10 June stating that an investigation by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice had concluded that Mrs Blair’s “observations did not constitute judicial misconduct” and that “no disciplinary action” was necessary.
But in a separate letter to the NSS, obtained by The Independent, a caseworker from the OJC admitted that the complaint had in fact been “partially substantiated” and that, while no disciplinary action was needed, Mrs Blair would receive “informal advice from a senior judge.”
Others have noted on blogs and in online newspaper comments that Cherie Booth QC acted within sentencing guidelines in terms of the specifics of the case, it being argued that it is unlikely the defendant’s religious views would have made any difference. That may well be the case. I make no comment on that. I have not read all the evidence. The issue as I see it is straightforward and I would simply make two points:
(a) The OJC should have given clear reasons for their findings when they announced the result. This lack of transparency is part of the ‘secrecy’ malaise which blights much of the executive in this country and we do not need it in the judiciary or, rather The Office for Judicial Complaints. As the old saying goes… ‘Justice must not only be done, but needs to be seen to be done.’
(b) I can see absolutely no reason why a person’s religion or faith, whatever form that should take, should impact on sentencing.
The Independent notes: Mr Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said the OJC should still have released a more detailed statement which would have informed the public that two senior judges had shown concern over Mrs Blair’s sentencing decision and that she had been spoken to as a result. “It should be noted that the facts we alleged in our complaint are not disputed and that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice have shared our concerns over this case,” he said. “We welcome them stating their concern that remarks should not be made in court that could be thought to imply that defendants should be treated differently because of their religion or belief. This is a timely reiteration of the fundamental of justice that everyone should be treated equally by the courts, whatever their religion, or lack of it.”
I’m with the NSS on this and not simply because I share the secular state views.
Neuberger report: more solicitor judges wanted
Not, unfortunately Lord Neuberger MR but another distinguished Neuberger – Baroness Neuberger.
The Lawyer reports: The Law Society has long stated its belief that the judiciary should better reflect the diversity of the society it serves rather than being the preserve of the white, heterosexual, Oxbridge-educated, male barrister. Last week (15 June) it held a reception to coincide with its response to Baroness Neuberger’s recent report on judicial diversity and to highlight the contribution of solicitor judges, who remain in the minority among the higher echelons of the judiciary. The report proposes 53 recommendations to attract underrepresented groups, including engaging with schools and colleges and promoting part-time positions, in acknowledgement that, despite the best efforts of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), women, ethnic minorities and those from working class backgrounds remain underrepresented.
One is almost tempted to say Yada Yada Yada… but I won’t. It is a serious issue – but the last thing people are going to say at a public reception is that we don’t want diversity in the judiciary because we could end up with a judiciary which, frankly, is not very good at the job because of lack of experience.
The Bar may have its problems.. There may still be a few walking cliches of the classic ‘white, heterosexual, Oxbridge-educated, male barrister’ type harrumphing in Chambers and talking about suiting, shooting and solicitor-inadequates. Frankly, I have not met that many of prejudiced disposition and puffing their innate superiority in 30 years of meeting barristers. Such people are buffoons and deserve to be ridiculed and parodied when they pop their tailored haircuts above the parapet. Oxbridge produces good young law students, but so do many other universities and students from diverse backgrounds are rising in the profession. I am tired of lazy thinking and cliches. Professor Griffith’s book ‘The Politics of The Judiciary’ was written many many years ago – a fun read when I was a mildly radical law student, with much sense in it – but things have changed in 40 years. We’re not there yet – but I do think it fair to say that the profession is trying to move in the right direction and attract a more diverse social group into the the law.
The way to get diversity into our legal profession and judiciary is to promote good quality education to a wider social group and invest in it. The sad fact is that it is easier for the children of the middle classes to get into law and many of these have been white. Things are changing slowly – and diversity will come. I can’t imagine there are tens of thousands of lawyers saying we don’t want diversity in the profession or the judiciary.
The last thing we need is positive discrimination and a pile of useless inexperienced judges – of whatever colour, creed or social background. We must resist the temptation to be seduced by the social benefits of positive discrimination or, as I prefer to put it tonight – because I am feeling sardonic – positive patronisation.
As I used to say when I set examination questions – Discuss.
An American cartoonist (and lawyer and artist) friend, Charles Fincher, does excellent cartoons.
Always worth looking at both Scribble-in-Law and Bitcher & Prickman
I don’t agree with positive discrimination in any area of life – I believe, and always have done, that cream rises. There will, of course, be a small number of exceptions, but if someone is good enough their talent will be recognised, regardless of age, race or sex. No, I’m not naive – I’m a 50 something female who worked my way up through the ranks of what most would perceive as male dominated industries.
Pam – I could not agree more!
The National Secular Society seems to be comprised entirely of people who should get out more.
More solicitor judges? Shrug.
White Rabbit – There is little Law to write about at the moment… I do my best…. Yes… more solicitor judges? Really? Can they be bothered?
🙂
OH ! a subject close to my white, heterosexual, Oxbridge-educated, male barrister heart. The Bar has made little to no advances in selecting anyone that is not Oxbridge educated over the last 100 years save for now allowing women to (God forbid what next), enter its ranks also Oxbridge educated. Year in and year out I see outstanding candidates from Kings, UCL, Bristol et al all refused even an interview because they did not go to Oxford or Cambridge. One candidate stood head and shoulders above 165 applicants, Kings educated, mooting skills, varied and extensive CV. The very top school not in England but The most exclusive World wide. The 30 second discussion went something like this. “Well one could say he will make an outstanding member of chambers, could stand us all to a few lunches by all accounts. Then again he went to Kings!” One great CV turfed. Let us not fool ourselves. If you want to be a barrister in England attend Oxbridge and study anything, knitting, string making or kite flying it is all great as long as it is Oxbridge.
The Judge – Ha! Well there we are… there are still Chambers with these views.
I did get the impression, talking reasonably widely at The Bar, that things were changing. It seems not in some parts./
Thanks for the contribution!
Charonqc- Unfortunately the evidence does not hold up. The the study done by Derek Wood CBE QC for the BSB says everything is great and fair. However just look at Derek Wood CBE QC chambers, Falcon, last 10 years only one member is from outside Oxbridge. It is outrageous that a study is produced sprouting such unadulterated nonsense. Out of the top 10 commercial chambers in London 92 of the last places went to Oxbridge students, 6 to Redbrick and 2 to other universities yet this report says only 32% of pupillage handed out were from Oxbridge. So where are these pupils hiding, why are they not on the web sites of Chambers, is chambers ashamed to have non Oxbridge? I think it is more likely that they do not have non Oxbridge pupils!