Tip of the hat to Liadnan for alerting Geeklawyer to this valiant attempt by Mr Justice Peter Smith to wrestle the award of “Looniest Judge Ever” away from its current holder, Philippino Judge floro.
Smith J got wrapped up in a court case where he was confronted by a firm of solicitors, Addleshaw Goddard, to whom he had made an unsuccessful proposal for a venture. This might not necessarily be a problem but the judge seems to have taken some offence at AG’s rejection. The problem began when AG asked the judge to recuse himself from a case where they were on the record as solicitors. He declined. They made an application before him for him to recuse himself, on the grounds of non-impartiality, and supported it with his own emails and an examination in chief of the partner who had rejected him.
You can probably begin to see how this might get to be bizzaroworld meets AngryCity. And you would be right.
With evident hostility the judge began to cross examine the witness and give his own evidence from the Bench.
“MR CRAMPIN: Having had an unsuccessful discussion or negotiation with Addleshaws, your lordship expressed yourself in strong – intemperate, almost — anguish.
“MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Nonsense. I don’t know what part of the country you come from, Mr Crampin, but it’s about time you grew up. If you think that’s intemperate, then you are on another planet from me. If you thought it was intemperate, then you should have seen the correspondence which didn’t trouble Mr Twigden.
“MR CRAMPIN: I’m endeavouring to make a submission, not to engage with your Lordship in badinage of that kind. The question that a fair-minded person –
“MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I’m challenging you, Mr Crampin, on your analysis, when you suggest that my correspondence was intemperate. I don’t accept that.
“MR CRAMPIN: Well, it’s a submission, my Lord –
“MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Well, I have rejected it. I’ve just told you.
“
“MR CRAMPIN: I don’t think your Lordship is actually going to pay attention to anything further I say on this subject. Your conduct of the matter in the court today is remarkable. My submission to your Lordship …
“MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I’m not going to comment on that, Mr Crampin. It does not dignify a comment
“MR CRAMPIN: I’m making the submission that I am.
“MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: If you’re going to say that, you’d better say it with specificity, or you’d better withdraw it, or there might be professional consequences.
“MR CRAMPIN: Your Lordship can take whatever course you’d like to take.”
Needless to say the Court of Appeal had a word or two to say.
One imagines that any aspirations Smith J. had of elevation to the Court of Appeal have been deflated.
Geeklawyer believes that several Mystic Dwarves were seen leaving the court giggling as they headed back to the Philippines. Judge Floro remains undisturbed as head loony but it was a good attempt by Smith J.
Update.
It would seem His Lordship may soon have more time to spend on his CV
That phrase...
I read the judgment earlier today. It was fairly easy to read, as I sipped a glass of Rioja.
Astonishing exchange between Crampin and Smith J… truly astonishing…
It is quite remarkable, given the clear facts and Smith J’s email exchange with Addleshaw Goddard, that he should have stood down / recused etc.
Baffling…
This extract from the CA judgment rather sinks him below the water line:
“12. Some four hours later the judge replied:
“I found your first email insulting and your second one condescending. I do not think the response should have been from you by such emails. You really should have had the courtesy to speak to me.”
He then again reverted to the financial position and said of the figures which had been referred to in AG’s earlier email:
“They are just artificial figures. It is galling that these are used to knock down a proposal that emanated from you, which was never discussed with me and I would never have agreed it with you if presented in this way. We all agreed it there ought to be substantial benefits if properly sold but at this stage they would be difficult to assess.”
He then made some further observations on the figures and concluded:
“I feel you have wasted my time for several months. I am extremely disappointed because contrary to your fine words you have allowed the bean counters to prevail. I am not very impressed with you or your firm at the moment and I do not think the tone of your emails enhances the position.”
It is, as the CA observd, a ‘most unusual case’. (per Sir Anthony Clarke MR)
This exchange between counsel and judge was particularly disturbing:
“MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: If you’re going to say that, you’d better say it with specificity, or you’d better withdraw it, or there might be professional consequences.
“MR CRAMPIN: Your Lordship can take whatever course you’d like to take.
Sinister…and, not a brilliant demonstration of judicial behaviour.
Sinister indeed, in fact were I Mr Crampin QC (yes another bloody QC - these people are everywhere - like weeds
) I’d be inclined to grass him up the Lord Chancellor, or the Ministry of Truth as it is nowadays.
Then again maybe he want a shot at the big chair; and no-one wants a sneak on the bench.