The Lord Chief Justice is setting up a 24 hour counselling line for Judges after a survey found that judges felt in need of “practical and emotional support.” Nothing at all then to do with the recent tragic circumstances of Lord Justice Richards, currently facing trial for exposing himself to a woman on train. Ruthie speculates that he must have been under huge personal stress to commit professional suicide in such a spectacular fashion.
Ruthie finds it difficult to engage with the judiciary socially. Accompanying the terror of breaching some protocol, Ruthie finds it difficult to recount her lewd anecdotes about badgers in front of someone who next week will be pronouncing on her abuse of process argument. Tragic really, since they were once lawyers too. Since Ruthie is unlikely to be alone in her feelings, it can be safely concluded that being a Judge is a lonely business.
Ruthie has never understood the requirement that Judges, once appointed, must abandon all prospect of ever returning to practice. The result is that most judges are either 107 years old, and achieved everything they wanted to do in private practice, or are seen as having been a failure in practice and simply there for the guaranteed income and the pension. If the terms were made a little more flexible, Ruthie thinks the hours may well suit women with school age children.
Though commendable, Ruthie wonders about the effectiveness of the advice line. Is it going to be manned by senior lawyers? Unlikely. If so will a Judge really want to phone a total stranger, to admit and discuss his/her intimate personal problems? Will they be suspicious that despite the assurances of confidentiality the information may get passed back to the Lord Chancellors Department? (Forgive me, Department of Constitutional Affairs. How very 20th Century.)
Ruthie thinks the Bar needs to address the expectations it places on members. If being a Judge is seen as being what it is- a job - rather than some kind of divine appointment, then perhaps Judges would be less afraid to admit they are human.
Judicial resignations have happened. Justice Laddie resigned because it was boring. He then went to a firm of solicitors rather than return to the Bar which is almost as astonishing.
I imagine and hope that he finds advising shoplifters in police station cells, and getting injunctions on nuisance neighbours, rather more engaging.
The bench is boring. But everyone knows that so you take that on board when you apply. Its not permitted to return to practice at the Bar so becoming a solicitor was his only option.
Anyway, GL dont be rude about solicitors when you are so close to having to become the employee of one…
I am a little confused by your tenses here: past present or future?
Is Richards LJ facing trial in the Crown Court then? I’ve been on the lookout for news on his Mags’ court sppearance a couple of weeks ago. Does anyone know what happened?
Initially I was perplexed as to why you mentioned a Crown Court trial as indecent exposure has always been a summary only offence. However Ruthie notes it is now covered (or not as the case may be) under s 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (one of the few decent pieces of criminal legislation to be produced of late) and is now triable either way. Ruthie suspects that election would be a good course, but I dont envy the pressure that must be on Richards LJ’s lawyers right now, although no doubt as nothing compared to the pressure that must be on him.
(Interestingly the previous options for charge were section 28 of the Town Police Causes Act 1847 “Any person who wilfully and indecently exposes his person” (no woman required to be offended) or section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 “Persons committing certain offences to be deemed rogues and vagabonds” “every person wilfully, openly and lewdly exposing his person with intent to insult any female.” Readers may think that overhaul of this particular piece of legislation is not before time)
Whilst Ruthie does not condone what he is alleged to have done, whether guilty or not, he started to receive his punishment the moment he got arrested, and even if he is ultimately aquitted, has effectively received a life sentence.
Ruthie wonders whether some people become so frustrated pressured and trapped with their lives, and so unable to see a way out that they deliberately sabotage their careers just to get some release…
The last I heard he had pleaded not guilty but I dont know whether the cas was due to be heard in the Mags or Crown Court.
You obviously haven’t been reading my blog, ruthie!
http://legalscribbles.com/2007/03/04/lord-justice-richards-and-two-counts-of-exposure/
He was due to appear in court on 8th March. I haven’t seen any reports on it as yet.
Ruthie finds it difficult to engage with the judiciary socially.
Hmmm, I’m a tad sceptical about this. If true, what do you say when you are in his bed? Or does sex replace conversation? Not gossiping, just honest curiosity.
I’m the unofficial Judicial Advice Line. Maybe I should be on retainer from the DCA…
Interestingly, whilst researching the law on indencent exposure, Ruthie came accross the Uniforms Act 1894, section 2 “Military Uniforms not to be worn without authority” the only exception being plays or bona fide military presentations….