Court of Appeal judge accused of flashing
Derek Hornby
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
The Times 9 June 2007
The trial next week of a Court of Appeal judge accused of flashing
will be heard by a rare panel of a judge sitting with two magistrates
because of the sensitivity of the case.
Timothy Workman, the most senior district judge for magistrates'
courts in England and Wales, will preside over the trial of Sir
Stephen Richards with two lay magistrates. His decision came after
consultation with the deputy Lord Chief Justice, Sir Igor Judge.
Peter Veits, the president of the Justices' Clerks' Society, said
yesterday: "This is unusual but clearly Judge Workman has exercised
his discretion to sit with a panel because of the nature of this
particular case.
"If the matter had gone to the Crown Court, then the judge would be
directing a jury. But in the magistrates' court, Judge Workman would
be the sole arbiter of facts -deciding both guilt and innocence, and
sentence, all on his own."
Sir Stephen has been accused of two counts of exposure for which the
maximum penalty in the magistrates' court is six months' jail or a
fine of £5,000.
The case at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court is expected to
last two days, with prosecution and defence using Queen's Counsel
-again, unusual in the magistrates' court. Peter Wright, QC, has been
instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service and David Fisher, QC, for
Sir Stephen.
Sir Stephen, 56, denies the charges, which were brought in March. He
has not been sitting on cases in court since but has been working on
paper applications and appeals, and remains on his salary of
£184,000 a year. He has also stood down from the chairmanship of the
board of governors of King's College School, London, pending the trial.
The judge, who is married with three children, was arrested in an
undercover operation after a complaint by an alleged woman victim. He
was detained on his way to work after the woman picked him out on a train.
British Transport Police said that the allegations relate to two
incidents last October involving the same complainant.
Senior judges cannot be removed from office except by a vote of both
Houses of Parliament.
Alasdair
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Senior judges cannot be removed from office except by a vote of both
>Houses of Parliament.
>
Does the "vote of both Houses of Parliament" tend to be a formality if
the judge is convicted or is it debated at length?. When was the last
time this happened?
--
Alasdair.
Andrew McGee
"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:v97l631kv72k9mqd8...@4ax.com...
It has never happened. The procedure dates from the Act of Settlement of
1702, which provides that High Court Judges hold office 'quamdiu se bene
gerissent', which, as all readers of this forum know, is usually transalted
as 'during good behaviour'
The petition procedure has never been used, but of course there have been
cases of judges who have been discreetly told that their time is up and that
their resignation is expected.
Circuit judges, by contrast, hold office at the pleasure of the Lord
Chancellor (I am fairly sure it is still the LC despite the recent reforms -
the LC is in charge of appointing judges, though the LCJ then manages them).
About two years ago one judge was removed for persistent misconduct in court
(and yes I do know his name, and no, I'm not printing it here). There have
been other discreet resginations - there was for example the wonderful case
of Judge Campbell, convicted of smuggling booze and fags from France (before
the days of the Single Eureopean Market). That was surely grounds for
removal, but he was allowed to resign.
Andrew McGee
Periander
news:CNKdnasM87mzJ_fb...@bt.com:
...
> About two years ago one judge was removed for persistent misconduct in
> court (and yes I do know his name, and no, I'm not printing it here).
Wouldn't have been a chap from Snaresbrook responsible for keeping the CoA
over busy rectifying his errors and extending apologies for his somewhat
strange behaviour in court ... especially to a certain female barrister who
had the temerity to point out (very politely) that HH was talking through
his arse.
--
Regards,
Periander
Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )
news:ycmdneVRvIj8D_fb...@bt.com...
No mention in that report that the
"identification" was made 3 months later,
after the October incidents on a similar time and
journey of train.
And of course "Hawthorne Effect" fashion the
victim has to pick out someone,anyone,
doesn't matter who, to be polite to
the police because of all the attention
they've given her.
ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.
fjm...@gmail.com
<nutte...@quickfindit.com> wrote:
> No mention in that report that the
> "identification" was made 3 months later,
> after the October incidents on a similar time and
> journey of train.
> And of course "Hawthorne Effect" fashion the
> victim has to pick out someone,anyone,
> doesn't matter who, to be polite to
> the police because of all the attention
> they've given her.
Fortunately a lot is now known about the dangers with false ID, and
hopefully that will play in the judge's defence.
Francis
Andy Pandy
<fjm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181409462.8...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
But if he does get off, whatever the evidence, the usual clueless brigade will whine
about "one law for them...", "looking after their own..." etc.
--
Andy
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
And that's without any mention of the moron(s) who will claim that
displaying one's penis in a certain way and muttering certain words is
a secret Masonic sign known only to 23' degree Masons aka Knights of
the Celestial Fishcake.
--
x If you have been, was it cooked?
/|\
nacional
<Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1181422085.4...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 9 Jun, 19:36, "Andy Pandy" <spam8ti...@wonderful.spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>> <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1181409462.8...@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 9 Jun, 17:02, "Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )"
>> > <nutte...@quickfindit.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > No mention in that report that the
>> > > "identification" was made 3 months later,
>> > > after the October incidents on a similar time and
>> > > journey of train.
>> > > And of course "Hawthorne Effect" fashion the
>> > > victim has to pick out someone,anyone,
>> > > doesn't matter who, to be polite to
>> > > the police because of all the attention
>> > > they've given her.
>>
>> > Fortunately a lot is now known about the dangers with false ID, and
>> > hopefully that will play in the judge's defence.
>>
>> But if he does get off, whatever the evidence, the usual clueless brigade
>> will whine
>> about "one law for them...", "looking after their own..." etc.
>
Ordinary people cannot afford a top QC to defend them in the magistrates
court or get the chief district judge to correctly apply the law.
Richard Miller
<naci...@senshaII.com.ca> writes
>
>>
>
>Ordinary people cannot afford a top QC to defend them in the magistrates
>court
They can if the case merits it. Legal aid will usually pay, even if they
fail the basic means test. Before last October, there was no means test
so any person would get a QC for free if the case warranted it.
--
Richard Miller
nacional
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:khUusVDk...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
for murder yes but indecent exposure ?
fjm...@gmail.com
>
> for murder yes but indecent exposure ?
But if the prosecution have instructed senior counsel, that might be a
strongly indicating factor.
Francis
Richard Miller
pete
How about for Criminal Damage? Or even to make an application to a
Judge to appeal a magistrates decision to adjourn an application.
These instances have not happened yet but forewarned is forearmed.
pete
www.suffolkrightsofway.co.uk
www.ipswichwaterfrontaccess.co.uk
Steve Walker
> No mention in that report that the
> "identification" was made 3 months later,
Yeah, but you're not going to forget that wig easily, are you?
Richard Miller
<tur...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 08:41:29 +0100, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <C4ednQMyvP4...@bt.com>, nacional
>><naci...@senshaII.com.ca> writes
>>>
>>>"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:khUusVDk...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <Dd6dnZbVJL9Jjvbb...@bt.com>, nacional
>>>> <naci...@senshaII.com.ca> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ordinary people cannot afford a top QC to defend them in the magistrates
>>>>>court
>>>>
>>>> They can if the case merits it. Legal aid will usually pay, even if they
>>>> fail the basic means test. Before last October, there was no means test so
>>>> any person would get a QC for free if the case warranted it.
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Miller
>>>
>>>for murder yes but indecent exposure ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes.
>
>How about for Criminal Damage?
If you meet the means test then probably yes unless the value of the
damage is trivial.
> Or even to make an application to a
>Judge to appeal a magistrates decision to adjourn an application.
Means and merits tested, but possible.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<tur...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Thanks Richard. I may need some help from a legal aid lawyer. I hoped
>you enjoyed your Formula 1 today. I will see the highlights after I
>know the result as I tend to get too excited if I do not know who has
>won before hand. Louis I hope?
He did it.
BTW, the other thing you really, seriously need to know before watching
is that Robert Kubica is fine. You will see what I mean...
--
Richard Miller
Alex Heney
Well fine-ish.
I don't think he will be racing again for a couple of months.
That was a real testimony to the strength of the cockpit and the
harness.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's never too late to have a happy childhood
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
pete
I am glad Louis got a win. What a start for a very promising career.
He is amazing that young man. I take it there was a nasty accident.
Thanks for warning me.
pete
www.suffolkrightsofway.co.uk
www.ipswichwaterfrontaccess.co.uk
dapunka
I'd love to know what kind of case Legal Aid would think warranted a
QC in Magistrate's Court.
Richard Miller
<tur...@hotmail.com> writes
Nasty enough for me to have feared we had just seen a fatality.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:59:41 +0100, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <eqlo63pvk5jl0gqrh...@4ax.com>, pete
>><tur...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>Thanks Richard. I may need some help from a legal aid lawyer. I hoped
>>>you enjoyed your Formula 1 today. I will see the highlights after I
>>>know the result as I tend to get too excited if I do not know who has
>>>won before hand. Louis I hope?
>>
>>He did it.
>>
>>BTW, the other thing you really, seriously need to know before watching
>>is that Robert Kubica is fine. You will see what I mean...
>
>Well fine-ish.
>
>I don't think he will be racing again for a couple of months.
>
>That was a real testimony to the strength of the cockpit and the
>harness.
A decision will be made on Thursday as to whether he will race at
Indianapolis next weekend.
That's pretty damn fine in my book - astonishingly, and much to the
relief of every fan of motorsport.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
dapunka <dap...@googlemail.com> writes
Well, the case that is the subject matter of this thread is an excellent
example. Such cases will be extremely rare.
Another one which would have done (although I don't know if they did
have a QC) was when the Americans were trying to extradite Lotfi Raissi
for an alleged connection with 9/11, which his solicitor managed to
prove - to the satisfaction of the same arbiter, District Judge Workman
- was a figment of the imagination of the overheated Yank intelligence
services.
--
Richard Miller
Alex Heney
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <tvto63hcbq8ppljdf...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:59:41 +0100, Richard Miller
>><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <eqlo63pvk5jl0gqrh...@4ax.com>, pete
>>><tur...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Richard. I may need some help from a legal aid lawyer. I hoped
>>>>you enjoyed your Formula 1 today. I will see the highlights after I
>>>>know the result as I tend to get too excited if I do not know who has
>>>>won before hand. Louis I hope?
>>>
>>>He did it.
>>>
>>>BTW, the other thing you really, seriously need to know before watching
>>>is that Robert Kubica is fine. You will see what I mean...
>>
>>Well fine-ish.
>>
>>I don't think he will be racing again for a couple of months.
>>
>>That was a real testimony to the strength of the cockpit and the
>>harness.
>
>A decision will be made on Thursday as to whether he will race at
>Indianapolis next weekend.
>
>That's pretty damn fine in my book - astonishingly, and much to the
>relief of every fan of motorsport.
Indeed :-)
When I posted the above, they were still saying he had a broken leg.
It now seems to be even lighter injuries than that, which really is
almost incredible after watching the crash.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Space is an illusion, disk space doubly so.
Mike Worth
wrote:
>>That's pretty damn fine in my book - astonishingly, and much to the
>>relief of every fan of motorsport.
>
>Indeed :-)
>
>When I posted the above, they were still saying he had a broken leg.
>
>It now seems to be even lighter injuries than that, which really is
>almost incredible after watching the crash.
Those Carbon Fibre cells sure work well.
PeteM
>
><fjm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Fortunately a lot is now known about the dangers with false ID, and
>> hopefully that will play in the judge's defence.
>
>But if he does get off, whatever the evidence, the usual clueless brigade will
>whine
>about "one law for them...", "looking after their own..." etc.
For that reason it is a bad idea to have judges (and police) treated in
a different way from anyone else; it looks dodgy even if it isn't.
If he is tried in the normal way and found not guilty then nobody *can*
complain that the result was fixed in his favour.
--
PeteM
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com