Tag Archives: solicitors

Open All Hours

Fulford LJ is the Judge in Charge of Reform. This is a noble aim. The Justice System should reform. We should look at ways whereby modern technology is utilised effectively (effectively being the operative word). We should strive to make sure that the Justice System remains fit for its stated purpose (this is not the same as being popular). 

I certainly have the greatest of respect for Fulford LJ, the office he holds and even his special responsibility of reform. But this is not what we need right now. What we need is a Judge in Charge of Getting the Basics Right. 

This is not a sexy job title. This is not something which looks good on the CV when going for one of the big jobs. But it is needed in the Criminal Courts. And it is needed before we even begin with the ambition of reform. There is no point attempting to augment something which does not work in the first place. Even Chris Hoy would struggle on a titanium framed penny farthing. 

Let’s examine the Flexible Operating Hours pilot which Lord Justice Fulford has recently defended and the reality of every day life in the criminal courts. The FOH pilot has the stated aim of utilising the court estate with greater efficiency and operating at times which is more convenient for court users. 

Let us look at the reality. The reality is that a trial scheduled to start at 10am today did not get underway until 2.15 because the defendant was not produced from custody. This was because the van set off from the prison housing the defendant at just before 10am, a prison which is over two hours away from Court. This was not because something went wrong. This was not because it was only realised that the defendant was required at the last moment. This is because this is the way it is. This is the accepted reality of life in the courts. Whilst I cannot say it happens every single day (although I would not be surprised to find out it does) it happens with such frequency that every court user will recognise the scenario I have described. 

A courtroom sat empty whilst we awaited the van. A witness who could reasonably have expected their evidence to be concluded today was sent away until tomorrow. 

Now I can predict with certainty that barely a single prisoner will be delivered to court in time for an 830 am start or even a 930 start. Those prisoners who are in the afternoon shift will not get a lie in (you can bet that only one van will drop off so the defendant required for an afternoon hearing will come with the morning lot) and experience shows they will be lucky to get a Pot Noodle on their return in the evening. Imagine that in a trial. Day after day of early starts, hours in cramped court cells, a curled sandwich at lunchtime and no hot meal all week. If this is reform then it is only in the sense of the word used when Pink Floyd reform. We are not putting the band back together, we are putting the workhouses and the squalor of Victorian gaols back together. 

For late defendants you can substitute inadequate interpretation provision, poorly prepared lawyers, courtrooms sitting empty because there is no budget for judges (yes, really) and videolink technology that has all the reliability of an Austin Allegro built on a Friday afternoon. The Criminal Justice System is beset with difficulties. Solving these have to be the priority, not opening all hours. 

We are told that, should the Pilots be a success, the greater efficiencies will allow money to be spent on the rest of the system. We all know that “greater efficiencies” means closing court buildings. And that has huge consequences which are only amplified by FOH. 

Again, an example based on the reality of attending court. It is proposed that Newcastle will operate from 930am. This will require lawyers being there before then to conduct their discussion with their opponents and confer with their clients (if they are lucky enough to be on bail and therefore have a prospect of being there themselves on time). The earliest you can get to Newcastle from Birmingham by train is 9.27. From Liverpool it is 9.14. From Manchester you can get there with an hour before court. If you leave on the train at 5.47. And from London the earliest you can get there is 9.40am (or you could drive and leave the house at about 3.30 am).

This means that those lawyers with a hearing in the 930 court will either have to appear by videolink (not always practical, desirable or even achievable) or will have to stay the night before. The stay the night before will be at the advocate’s own expense (it is relatively uncommon to receive travel expenses and when you do they only cover the trial, not ancillary hearings like the sentence) and that expense may well come out of a fee which is £45. Or even £0. A more efficient use of the Court Estate may require the judicial car park at Newcastle to accommodate a caravan or two. Or maybe a yurt. Perhaps the dormant canteens can be reformed into dormitories. 

So this demonstrates a fundamental problem with the FOH that you don’t need a pilot, or even a train driver, to spot. They instantly throw a time and financial burden on the lawyers. And yet this only highlights a growing problem with the accessibility of courts. As the local court closes it will be the witness, the plaintiff, the victim and the innocent that cannot get to their nearest court by public transport. So the greater efficiencies strived for within the pilot turns the Justice System into a more remote silo of justice physically removed from the community it works to keep safe. 

These FOH pilots cost a small fortune. The CPS have to pay their staff more. Consultants will make a small fortune evaluating the results. Civil servants will devote time and energy writing blogs and implementation strategies. Right Honourable Lord Justices (or Lords Justice) will have to devote judicial time to writing letters to the ill-informed. 

Yet it is the ill-informed that could tell them all they need to know. It is the ill-informed who know the defendants will not be produced in time. It is the ill-informed who can look at a train timetable and realise they cannot get to court on time. It is the ill-informed who know that they will have cases that appear in both shifts in any given day and will be at court from 8 til 7. It is the ill-informed that know that those with childcare responsibilities will have their careers turned upside down by the unpredictability of our work being stretched over two or three shifts from dawn til dusk. 

So I go back to where I started. We do not need a Judge in Charge of Reform. We need a Judge in Charge of Getting the Basics Right. We need defendants produced on time. We need facilities that work and allow us to do the jobs required of us. And where do I suggest getting the money to fund these basics? Well you could start by scrapping the FOH pilot. After all, I don’t need six months evaluating the burns to my lap to work out that a chocolate teapot is not the way to make my morning cuppa. 

Auto Pilot

The Court of His Honour Judge Parr-Teeline QC in the Crown/Magistrates’/Civil Justice/Family Court sitting at the  Georgraphical Area known as “The North”. It is 8:32 am on day 1,735 of the Flexible Operating Hours pilot scheme. There is the customary knock on the door and all stand for the Judge. All, that is, bar one advocate who has his head on the desk and is snoring loudly. 

HHJ P-T QC: (coughs loudly) Mr Van-Winkle…ahem….(louder) MR VAN-WINKLE

Mr Van-Winkle wakes with a start and leaps to his feet. He pulls his gown tight around his body in a defensive cloak. 

MR V-W: Very sorry Your Honour, I was involved in a sentence in Her Honour Judge Worker’s evening shift court last night and it hardly seemed worth heading home so I got my head down here. Seemed a more efficient way of deploying the Court Estate. 

HHJ P-T QC: No problem, Mr Van-Winkle, but perhaps….just….(the Judge points to his own wig)

Van-Winkle’s hand feels the top of his head where he discovers a Victorian style night cap. He quickly whips it off and replaces it with his wig. The Judge now addresses the Court Clerk.

HHJ P-T QC: Right, can we have the defendants into the dock please. 

The Court Clerk stands and speaks loudly enough for everyone to hear. 

CC: I am sorry Your Honour, they haven’t been produced. Apparently the van bringing them here set off at 5.30 this morning but had to drop off at two other local courts and pick up from the overnight midnight remand court. I am told they won’t be here until 2.30 this afternoon. 

HHJ P-T QC: I am sorry, you said “local courts”. How on earth can it take until 2.30 to get here from two other local courts?

CC: Well, since the FOH pilot has been running, coincidentally one or two buildings have been mothballed. The nearest court to here is 100 miles away. 

HHJ P-T QC: Right, well, we will just have to put this case back to 2.30 and we will deal with it then. 

CC: I am sorry Your Honour, but this afternoon this courtroom is being used by His Honour Judge Tardy for day 12 of a 3 day burglary trial. They lost 8 days due to counsel drafting formal admissions and having conferences. They used to do it over lunch, but of course there isn’t a short adjournment any more. Only long ones. 

HHJ P-T QC: So I can’t sit in this courtroom at a time to accommodate an entirely predictable but unforeseen hiccup?

CC: No

HHJ P-T QC: That’s not very “flexible” is it? (becoming somewhat exasperated) We will just have to sit in Court 2…

CC: Ah. Again, a problem I am afraid. Court 2 is the Parking Dispute Hub between 1.15 and 2.30. Then it is sitting as the Tribunal of All Things between 2.30 and 3.30, is hosting a children’s tea party between 3.30 and 4.15 and then is sitting as a Magistrates’ Court until 7pm. Then it becomes the Wizengamot. Harry Potter is in trouble again. 

HHJ P-T QC: But this is still the Crown Court, right? Where we do Crown Court cases? Criminal cases? That do not always start and finish on time? 

CC: If Your Honour wants to look at it from a purely jurisdictional silo point of view….

HHJ P-T QC: A what?

CC: A jurisdictional silo point of view….

HHJ P-T QC: Yes, yes, yes. I heard what you said. But what does it mean?

CC: I dunno. I read it somewhere. You’re the Judge. You are meant to know what it means. 

HHJ P-T QC: I think you may need to lay off watching those old episodes of The Office…Anyway, let’s see if I can make some progress with just counsel. Who is for the first defendant?

(The Courtroom is in silence, apart from the faint sound of heavy breathing as Mr Van-Winkle has nodded off again)

CC: Now I can help you there. Counsel for the first defendant is Miss Life-Balance. Or it was. We have been informed that she has had to leave the Bar because it became impossible to find child care that fitted around the uncertain hours so it is now Mr Tether.

HHJ P-T QC: And where is Mr Tether?

CC: He emailed the Court this morning. If I can just read the email to Your Honour….

The Court Clerk bends down and begins to read from his computer screen

CC: Yes he emailed to say that the only train he could get that arrived on time for court left his hometown at 4.45 in the morning and involved three changes. He says that if you think he is staying overnight for a mention for which he doesn’t get paid then you’ve got another fuc….well, another thing coming. He then goes on to say that he couldn’t do anything anyway as they only found out that the case was listed at this time late last night because he was in the Mags until 8pm. Then there is some more swearing. A bit more swearing. Then he explains that, having got up at the crack of effing dawn to get the effing train, in fact it was effing-well late and he missed one of the connections so now won’t be here on time, despite having not slept and that if this causes a problem you can go….swing….. yes “swing” probably covers it. May not do justice to his full phrase, but you get the gist. There is then a whole paragraph about why the trains are delayed and swears quite a lot around the name “Chris Grayling” and repeats the phrase “what do you expect if you put him in charge of anything”….

HHJ P-T QC: ….that much the Court can take judicial notice of…..

CC: ….and he finishes with a plea that no matter what, could Your Honour refrain from ordering any more skeleton arguments because he has a 9.30 morning videolink hearing tomorrow, followed by a 4.30 videolink in the afternoon and a floating trial the rest of the week that he thinks may float either in the morning or the afternoon, not that he “effin cares any more” because “it doesn’t make a difference what I think as I am the bottom of the pile and no one listens” before he signs off “Up Yours, Enda Tether”. 

HHJ P-T QC: There is nothing else for it but to adjourn this hearing until next week. I myself am not sitting but…

(The Court Clerk rises to interrupt)

CC: Just one small problem for next week….

HHJ P-T QC: What is it? Is the Star Chamber sitting in this courtroom? Are they judging Crufts in here? Is the court needed to accommodate the Supreme Court? Are we hosting the Salem Witch Trials?

CC: No Your Honour, the courtroom is free to hear Crown Court cases….

HHJ P-T QC: What’s the problem then?

CC: With Your Honour being on holiday we haven’t got any sitting days left in the budget…so although we have plenty of space in the building…we don’t have a Judge…..

HHJ P-T QC: (bellows) OH FOR FUC…..

(At this point the transcript becomes unintelligible as Mr Van-Winkle emitted a loud snore. Mr Tether is believed to still be somewhere on the Rail Network. Miss Life-Balance now has a job where she is treated with respect and consideration. This is a new sensation for her.)

Pots, Pages and Pay

I have now read the entire consultation on fees. I have cogitated and calculated. I have some views to express (which is a good job or else the starting of a blog would have been a pretty pointless exercise). My thoughts have been concerning the figures in the boxes and the execution of parts of the scheme. In this blog I am going to deal with problem under which those shaping the scheme have had to labour – there is no new money. Fees that were set for cases many moons ago, fees that have been subsequently reduced, are still being paid at the same, reduced rate.  

It is also undoubtedly the case that the current AGFS remunerates some cases in an inadequate manner. There are times when you do a case and then see the bill. You do a double take. Surely there has been some mistake in the calculation of the fee? Surely all that work and worry must be worth more than this? 

There are those at the Bar who are canny and dodge the under-paying cases. There are those of us who think “never again”, right up to the next time you take on a similar case. The long and the short of it is that there are winners and losers when it comes to a fee scheme that pays by the piece rather than by the work put into the piece. 

When it comes to designing a scheme that is based on the same size pot, there are always going to be cases where payment goes down if money is shifted to other parts of the scheme. It is impossible to do it otherwise. 

In my opinion it is the inescapable truth that Silks are not paid enough for murders under the AGFS. I find it impossible to argue otherwise. It is right that these fees should be increased. The increase in these fees should come from extra money being paid into the scheme. The scheme under current consideration requires that the money comes from elsewhere within the scheme. And that means fees for other cases are going to be decreased. 

And here you have the point of tension. No one likes the idea of a pay cut. Those that see themselves as being the losers in this equation are going to cry foul. That is entirely understandable. 

I am not a Silk. I have never applied for Silk. I have no intention to apply for Silk in the next application round. I am a junior that does the occasional drugs conspiracy with a decent page count. I do some fraud type work. So I am going to be in a position where future fees may be reduced. I also do a fair amount of sex cases so I could see some fees increase. And no matter what it means for me, I can see that Silks are not properly remunerated for some murders at the present time. 

The information that accompanies the consultation indicates that the Silks’ slice of the pie is going to increase by 10%. This does not mean every Silk in the land is going to get a 10% pay increase. This does not mean that every Silk’s fee in every case is going to go up. It does not mean that there are no situations where a Silk is going to end up being paid less. It also means that, in some cases, a Silk is going to end up getting paid more than 10% extra on the current fee. But this 10% thing strikes me as a bit of public relations disaster for the new scheme. It makes it very difficult to sell to the rank and file. That 10% is coming from somewhere and it is coming from the fees paid to the junior bar. So I know that a fee increase for Silks is the right thing to happen. It is just that there is not a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. 

It may have been easier if just a little bit of the extra money for Silks (produced by a formula explained within the consultation) had just been moderated slightly and the extra money put back into the fees that are being most significantly reduced (paper heavy fraud and drugs). It would have sugared the pill if it was the case that the consultation told us that the formula had worked out that the Silks should have been put up by more but that this figure had been adjusted due to the fact that the fees were being cut elsewhere and that the reduction would therefore be less. 

Of course this is a consultation. I am entitled to make that point. I am not arguing that Silks should not have some of their fees increased. I am arguing that, when the money in the pot is too little to begin with, such adjustments as are necessary should be dealt with not only by way of formula but also by way of sensitivities. 

I am not convinced that one can argue against the removal of page counts per se. It is a clumsy tool by which the seriousness of a case or the work involved is calculated. It worked better when it was first introduced, when it was used to differentiate between cases within a relatively small compass. But as page counts got bigger and the page count payments got extended to thousands rather than hundreds of pages it became less of an accurate measure of a case and more of a lottery in which you hoped for lots of pages on the PPE and a case summary that spoke of only one witness naming your client.

If you are to argue about the numbers in the boxes, it cannot just be by the slogan “save our PPE”. It cannot simply be by the cry that this time round your practice profile is going to mean you are in the column of fees being reduced. If any one wants to make the case why the figures in the boxes are wrong then I am more than happy to host any blogs on the subject. But I also repeat this request – those are argue that the figures in the boxes are right need to release more information to us. The Bar Council, the Circuits and the CBA need to provide us with information. Quickly. 

I will post another blog soon about one or two areas of detail in the proposed scheme. 

One Small Step

A little like Pammy and Bobby Ewing, Michael Gove has woken up, found common sense was having a shower and it is as if the last two years have just been a dream. 

Except it was not a dream. Grayling was, and remains, a grim reality for the legal profession. 

I thought that when….. no, if the day came when TT was abandoned and there was some positive news regarding the cuts I would punch the air and organise a street party outside chambers with trestle tables, egg and spoon races and a New Orleans Jazz Band. 

When the news came I found I had very little appetite for celebration. Why?

There are many factors. It is difficult to celebrate when I know many have already been lost to the professions due to the uncertainty and the financial peril caused by the cuts. A small proportion of the damage foretold has already been caused. And that has affected people adversely. If Grayling was capable of shame it should burn in his heart like the sun in the sky.

I also cannot help but feel this was a self inflicted defeat rather than a victory. I have no doubt that the various fronts of opposition have had their toll on the MoJ. I do not doubt that those with the ear of the new Lord Chancellor have been making a forceful and effective case. I do not doubt that Gove has an understanding of things better than Grayling was ever capable of. Yet I am left with the feeling that, had the MoJ been capable of organising a wine tasting in the Vintners’ Society, TT would have been introduced. And the damage has been escaped by happenstance rather than endeavour and . 

That is not to say that the efforts of all those involved should not be applauded. The various Chairmen, Chairwomen, Presidents and Officers are all owed a debt of gratitude that cannot be properly expressed in words. As are the activists, those that marched, those that funded, those that took action, those that returned briefs, those that did not accept the returns, those that organised and even those that did no more than sign one petition. Win, lose or draw you are all a legion of heroes

The most significant factor is the state of the CJS. Gove’s statement was a giant leap for solicitor-kind but a small step for the delivery of a just justice system. It was a positive but one that did not stop the papers being served late/incomplete/not at all in countless cases today. It did not suddenly cause the videolink equipment to work in the vulnerable witness’s case in the Crown Court at Breaking-Point-on-Sea. It did not inject the funds required to properly investigate, prosecute and defend cases. 

And that is why I cannot celebrate. We have so many more battles to fight. So many more victories to win. And we cannot always rely upon those in the wrong shooting themselves in the foot. 

Getting Wiggy With It

I am very fond of my wig. Not just because I am bald. Not just because it has been with me for twenty-two years. I am very fond of my wig because, whilst it has never saved my life, it has got me out of a tight spot or two.

When I was quite junior I spent many months as the second prosecution advocate in a large conspiracy. The two trials lasted over many, many months. There were Silks involved, there was a fearsome judge and there were some proper villains. When I say “proper villains” I mean not just people on the wrong side of the law, I mean proper stop-at-nothing types. The sort of villains Guy Ritchie gets all misty eyed about. 

The main man had a brother. The brother also fell into the category of “proper villain”. The brother saw me every single day of each of the trials. A few weeks after the guilty verdicts I found myself in the middle of Manchester, standing right next to said brother. I froze. 

“I know you, don’t I?” he said. 

My reply, amongst the stammers, was a cross between “I don’t think so” and “I hope not.”

“Yeah I do. Someat to do with our kid? Did I meet you at one of his parties?” he continued.

I assured him that he did not know me and then, in the style of a News of the World reporter in a brothel, made my excuses and left. He, of course, did know me. My face was incredibly familiar to him. But without the wig it was difficult for him to place me. My daily disguise had done its job. 

It is not the only time. I had a man grip my arm in a restaurant corridor and talk about how he knew my face, knew that I was, like him, connected and that I was someone who should know to show him respect. What he did not realise was that I had prosecuted him a few months earlier. 

There are times and circumstances when wigs and gowns should be removed. Appropriate accommodation made for the young and the vulnerable (having said that, when I introduce myself to young witnesses I often find the wig and gown is a great ice breaker) but otherwise I am very much in favour of them. 

The Crown Court is a very different beast to the Magistrates’ Court. Not better than, but different. We tend to spend longer with the participants of a Crown Court trial. The stakes tend to be higher. You can spend a whole day or more cross examining a witness. 

“We get on without them in the Mags” is not an answer to whether robes should be retained in the Crown Court. 

And barristers in private practice are different to solicitors in private practice. We prosecute. (And yes, I know that solicitors prosecute some work for some agencies but I am talking about the routine prosecution of serious crime.) I value highly the anonymity my wig gives me. I really, really do. 

That anonymity stretches to the jury. Good Crown Court advocacy in an even contest between skilled advocates  is directed at the case being about the evidence, not being about the advocate. The wig and gown is a uniform. It creates uniformity. And it means that the jury do not draw a personal affiliation to one side or the other due to some clue from their appearance (which is why an advocate should not have medals, badges or ribbons on their gown or even a poppy on their lapel).

These are some of the reasons why I support retaining robes. There are others. There are, naturally, arguments against. These should be debated. Part of that debate, however, should NOT include the idea that the Bar want to retain robes as it is a throwback to public school boys wanting to dress up. 

I have seen exactly that said, more than once. Now, I do not take offence at this terrible and lazy stereotype. I am not angry that, as a comprehensive school educated person, the idea that all barristers are, or consider themselves to be, toffs is ridiculous. 

I can assure you all that my university days were not spent dressing fancy, eating swan and initiating myself with a pig. The only drinking club at my uni was the Squash Club. And it was a club where you played Squash (the university being Aberystwyth, which prohibited pubs opening on a Sunday so the only place to get a drink was the private members Squash Club which had two courts and went out of business shortly after a referendum allowed Sunday boozing). 

Categorising the importance that some at the Bar place on robes as being a product of their public school backgrounds is, well, a bit like suggesting solicitors are only good for conveyancing and drafting wills. 

As the debate seems to come around once more about robes those participating should, perhaps, consider whether there are greater challenges facing the CJS than they way we dress and, perhaps, should consider that a lazy stereotype does not take the debate very much further. 

I like my wig. It is my uniform and invisibility cloak in one, itchy, horsehair contraption. Long may State educated school boys and girls aspire to wear them doing State funded work. 

The U-Turn

I blame Thatcher. 

In fairness I blame Thatcher for most things. I am of that generation – she snatched our milk and we will not forget such deeds. I am also that way inclined, I possess a left leaning streak that some times manifests itself in outbreaks of Labour voting and always ensures an antipathy to M H Thatcher. 

But this bit of Thatcher blaming is quite specific. I blame our former premier for a political mindset that traces its direct lineage back to Maggie. From the moment she uttered the words “the lady is not for turning”, politicians have recoiled in horror at the thought of the dreaded U-Turn like pre Christopher Eccleston Daleks reacted to stairs. 

The “U-Turn” has become politician shorthand for weakness and lack of leadership. The odd thing about it is that the deathly accusation of a U-Turn is reserved for things that have previously been put in train. It seems you can promise to do something and then not do it. That is, after all, just a broken promise and why should we hold that against our political classes? You can break promises with impunity but woe betide the politician who performs a U-Turn once they have embarked upon a course of action. 

Which is a crying shame because we desperately need the Lord Chancellor to perform a U-Turn. He has demonstrated a willingness to think again. He has demonstrated a willingness to think differently from his predecessor. Suadi prison contract? Ripped-up. Huge Youth Prison? Scrapped. Book ban? Reversed. Criminal Courts Charge? Days are numbered?

A prudent Lord Chancellor would pause the Duty Contract process whilst claims from a whistleblower are investigated. This is absolutely crucial. He cannot look back at this a year from now and realise they have got it wrong. 

Yet he seems wedded to TT. Today the contracts have been awarded. We step closer to the precipice. There are so many good reasons why there should be a whopping great big, tyre-smoking, handbrake turn on this one. The consequences of getting this wrong are not capable of retrospective repair. Which is why an intelligent Lord Chancellor should be for turning. 

There are so many reasons why this process has to be paused:

  1. The MoJ have a poor history of procurement (interpreters??);
  2. This procurement process has already been amended by reason of the JR;
  3. Questions are now raised as per the whistleblower above;
  4. This is the same MoJ that were simultaneously entering into disastrous contractual agreements with Saudi Arabia;
  5. Just about every informed observer raises concerns over the procurement model; and
  6. The recent consultation on advocacy recognises that quality assurances provisions need to be put in place, sense dictates you do this before altering the market place and in more than just Crown Court advocacy.

There is no prospect of action being taken by those who have been awarded the contracts to derail the process for the greater good. We are left only with the hope that good sense will prevail. It is the only way we have left to turn. 

The Four Retired Judges Sketch

With profuse apologies to Monty Python for this shameless hijacking of the Four Yorkshiremen Sketch. Please note that the Judges in this sketch are not from any particular county. I should also apologise to the many completely enlightened members of the modern Judiciary and practitioners at the senior end of both professions. Let us not slip back to old ways. The views expressed in this are not my views, nor are they meant to represent the views of any living person. This is one of my hamfisted attempts at satire, designed to show why the Bar and the Judiciary should not be complacent about diversity. If you find that the views expressed correspond with your own or one of the characters reminds you of yourself then that is entirely a coincidence and I apologise. That apology would not be to you but on your behalf…..

Four Judges sit together at the end of a convivial evening in the Old Bailey, a retirement home for the Judiciary in Eastbourne. Heavy crystal glasses are gripped in ageing hands. 

Judge This QC: Ahhh….very passable, this, very passable.

Judge That: Nothing like a good glass of Chateau de Chassilier wine, hey Gideon?

Judge Them: You’re right there Jocelyn.

Judge Yourself QC: Who would have thought thirty years ago we’d all be sitting here drinking Chateau de Chassillier wine, all of us former “Top Judges”……

Judge This QC: Aye, in them days it were only our fathers who were the Judges.

Judge That: Not top Judges mind…..

Judge Them: No, no. Not top Judges, remember that Maximillian’s father was only a District Registrar….

Judge Yourself QC: That’s right Gideon, but it’s never held me back, never held me back. And of course so unlike your father who was, I believe, described by the News of the World as a “Top Judge”

Judge This QC: Aye “Top Judge in Drink Drive and GoGo Dancer” scandal…..

Judge That:  As I recall it “Top Judge in Russian Spy GoGo Dancer” scandal…..

Judge Them: Yes, yes. And as you all know, he was cleared by the top man at the Ministry.

Judge Yourself QC: Ah yes, the report by Bernard Howe-Relates.

Judge This QC: Top fellow was Bernard.

Judge That: That’s right Peregrine, dear Bernie was a top fellow and wonderful cricketer, used to play with my father in the Old Garfordians…..

Judge Them: Yes, dear old Bernie, or Uncle Bumblepot as I used to affectionately call my Godfather….

Judge Yourself QC: Now when we started out it was hard to make your way.

Judge This QC: That’s right. Hard to make your way with so much to live up to.

Judge That: Nothing like the pressure to achieve more than your father.

Judge Them: Certainly not when you father was head of chambers….

Judge Yourself QC: And his father before him…..

Judge This QC: As your pupilmaster was always reminding you…..

Judge That: Ah yes, mine always said to me “Jocelyn” he would say “I always knew from our days rooming together at Haserthwicke College that your father was going places”…..

Judge Them: My pupil master constantly reminded me that he only let my father marry his sister because he could tell he was cut out for the job……

Judge Yourself QC:  But it wasn’t just the family pressure….

Judge This QC: No, it certainly was not. On my first day in chambers my father’s clerk pointed out to me that every chap from my college who had joined chambers had taken Silk….

Judge That: Mine said every fellow from my college had taken Silk and gone on the Bench….

Judge Them: The High Court Bench….

Judge Yourself QC: My clerk said everyone from my college and my school was in the Court of Appeal…..

Judge This QC: My Clerk told me you could put together a passable Old Boys Rugger XV from Attorneys-General that had been to my alma mater and reasonable Second XV from their fags who went on to be Solictor-General….

Judge That: On my first day in pupillage the clerk told me that there was a seven man House of Lords giving judgement that day who had all gone to my prep school…..

Judge Them: Now that’s pressure…..

Judge Yourself QC: Oh yes. Tell that to your average boy from a Secondary Modern and he wouldn’t recognise such pressure…..

Judge This QC: And then the slog to get work once you were in.

Judge That: Oh yes, you couldn’t rely on your LinkedIn profile…

Judge Them: Absolutely. Nor could you just sit there and await instructions from solicitors who went to the same college as you.

Judge Yourself QC: Exactly. Chaps from my college didn’t go into trade…..

Judge This QC: Precisely. It was endless hours on the golf course…

Judge That: Yes, and it didn’t stop on the course, in the Clubhouse too.

Judge Them: Half a pale ale with the Senior Partner of a firm….

Judge Yourself QC: Now those were the hard yards the youngsters of today don’t see.

Judge This QC: That’s why you did not see many lady Judges of our vintage….

Judge That: They couldn’t be in the clubhouse and in the kitchen making supper.

Judge Them: And those hips. The female hips are not conducive to a good golf swing….

Judge Yourself QC: …..not conducive……

Judge This QC: …..and anyway, lasses taking up pupillage was a waste of thirty Guineas…..

Judge That: A real waste.

Judge Them: Why waste thirty guineas on a pupillage when you were only going to pop off and have some babies within a few years?

Judge Yourself QC: Much better to spend it on a new dress or some pretty shoes!

Judge This QC: Wise words, Peregrine, wise words.

Judge That: And the Courtroom and the Robing Rooms, well, they are like the trenches, no place for a lady.

 Judge Them: No, I wouldn’t want a daughter of mine to see or hear the things that go on.

 Judge Yourself QC: In that situation men can only cope by being more of a man…

 Judge This QC: Aye, it’s the heat of the battle……

Judge That: …..the eye of the storm….

Judge Them: ……no place for shrinking violets……

Judge Yourself QC: …….or sensitive souls.

Judge This QC: If the occasional rum thing gets said, it’s a coping mechanism…

 Judge That: …..gallows humour…..

Judge Them: Nothing more than letting off steam…..

Judge Yourself QC: Like the Rugger changing room, no place for the fairer sex.

Judge This QC: Absolutely, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen…..

Judge That: …..popping back to the kitchen…..

Judge Them:
…..the real kitchen rather than the metaphorical kitchen…..

Judge Yourself QC: ….. and leave the job to the right sort.

Judge This QC: Try telling that to the young people of today and they will not listen, they will not listen. It’s all “don’t be so all un-PC”…..

Judge That: It’s not un-PC if it’s true…..

 Judge Them: Look at the Lord Chancellor, no longer needs to be a lawyer but has always been a man.

 Judge Yourself QC: And a man that went to the right sort of university at that….shows what’s important, shows what’s important.

 All: Yes, yes.