‘ Announcing the walk-out on Thursday, Angela Rafferty QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), said: “Lack of funding in the criminal justice system has resulted in near-collapse. The public accounts committee in 2016 said the criminal justice system was at breaking point. In my view it is now broken. We have to fix it.” ‘
Read more in this good report from Buzzfeed here.
The criminal Bar of England and Wales looks set to protest the lack of any proper investment in the criminal justice system.
This is what the Chair of the Criminal Bar Association has said today:
“We are the people who fairly prosecute and fearlessly defend. Without us people would now be locked up. Without us, the guilty would have walked free. Without us and our goodwill the system would have broken long ago. The system is desperate, as are we. 90% surveyed said they wanted to act to secure proper investment in the #criminaljusticesystem We will fight to improve the justice system for us and everyone else We announce this action today with heavy hearts.”
Read more here : https://mailchi.mp/criminalbar/fohprospectus-203485
A short article:
In today’s Times, referencing a report on Mailonline, you may read these words:
“She wasn’t groped. It was nothing more than a friendly slap on the bottom. She was apologised to and she didn’t make a big deal of it.”
This short article is not about the people involved. What I want to do is take a closer look at this odd collection of words. Let’s consider the ideas that such words are apt to convey.
The difference between a grope and a slap
There’s a difference, right? A grope is self-evidently wrong, but not so a slap. A grope is a continued action, sustained and malicious – is this what is meant by those words? On the other hand, a slap is short in duration – and accordingly acceptable? It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that these thoughts are intended because the words consciously contrast a grope with a slap. Why else use the comparator “nothing more than” [a slap]? Why else describe the slap as “friendly”?
The reality is that whilst a grope and a slap might represent two different ways of touching another person, they represent deliberate, unexpected and unwanted touching. They are as bad as each other, as sexually demeaning, and typical of an attitude of self-justifying male entitlement. There is no sliding scale of wrongness here. The use of the word “friendly” is offensive.
So what if the slap was on the bottom?
Do you need me to explain this?
“She was apologised to”
This is a curious use of words. I call it the third person impersonal. The emphasis is on the “she”, being the subject of the sentence. And what did “she” do? Well, nothing, which makes it odd that “she” is the subject of the sentence. The words are telling us that something was done to her, i.e. she received an apology. So that’s that, then? The end? Move on? Hold on. One normally sees an “I” in a sentence about an apology being given; however, there is none here.
The reality is that we cannot tell from these words:
“She didn’t make a big deal of it”
This follows immediately from the expression “she was apologised to”. Do you see how the emphasis on “she” is maintained? There is still no “I”. (In fact, we might consider that the word “I” doesn’t feature at all in this whole collection of words.) All that this part does is tell us the view of the man who did the slapping: “she didn’t make a big deal of it”.
But what does that expression even mean? Should we understand that “she” made a “little deal” of it? Or maybe a “medium-sized deal” of it? Or maybe no deal of it at all? Would any of these reactions make the slapping retrospectively more acceptable on the grounds that none amounts to making a “big deal” of it?
In reality, this emphasis on the reaction, or non-reaction, of “she” is a tawdry excuse that sorely misses the point. It is an example of the victim-blaming culture that exists in our society. The words “she didn’t make a big deal of it” draw us in to a self-justifying description of where the line falls between acceptable and unacceptable. The line is drawn not by reference to what “I” did but by how “I” say “she” reacted – or didn’t react.
But the criticism cannot stop there. There’s more. What of that reaction or non-reaction? Does it really tell us anything? In a different context, this puts criminal lawyers like me in mind of specific directions that judges give juries in cases involving sexual allegations. These directions warn juries to guard against stereotypes and assumptions about sexual behaviour and reactions to non-consensual sexual conduct. Typically juries will be directed as follows:
There may be any number of reasons why “she” might not make a “big deal of it”, but that is nothing to the point.
‘A man’s claim that he is alive has been rejected by a Romanian court after he was officially registered as deceased.’
“Yes, he lives in Scotland. I suppose that means the new case would go to the Procreator Fiscal.”
Great thing about my job is the travel to different parts of the country, usually not too far away. And everywhere has its own special places. Today was Carlisle Crown Court, probably the furthest I go. And Carlisle has a great coffee roasters, John Watt’s. An easy buy: one packet of espresso and another for the cafetière. 
I never got to see Ken Dodd perform live, though I did stand opposite him in a shuttle bus at Manchester Airport once, about twelve months after his acquittal.
From today’s obituary in today’s Times:
Get out and do it!
“The European Union decided last week it will give up to 30,000 18-year-olds free InterRail tickets for unlimited travel across Europe’s rail network this summer, offering them the chance to explore the continent and make friends.”
Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/travel/2018-is-the-only-british-18-year-olds-can-get-a-free-interrail-pass/
#ProfessorT, Channel 4 boxset.
If you haven’t yet, you absolutely should.
Fantastic TV.
As far as I am aware, there are no changes like this planned to the the Criminal Procedure Rules:
‘The judge cleared the jury from the courtroom and warned Mr Morris that “additional outbursts like that” would have repercussions. I will either remove you from the courtroom or I will use the shock belt on you,” he said. “Now, sir, are you going to follow the rules?”
“I have a lawsuit pending against you,” Mr Morris replied, according to the transcript. “Hit him,” Judge Gallagher said. After a deputy complied, the judge asked: “Are you going to behave?”
The judge had ordered that Mr Morris appear in court with a stun collar round his ankle, which can be remotely operated to apply electric shocks.’
Welcome 