Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial
Discussion
Amateur shrink hour: One of the problems leading to the mental collapse may be frustration. Mr S is not, based on my professional contact with him, particularly bright. His legal opinions that I have seen suggest that he does not really understand how the law works. The Defence Statement linked to above, even leaving aside the madness, is the work of a distinctly second rate legal mind, and reads more like what internet-taught litigants in person produce than the work of a lawyer. To be a bit of a legal duffer could be frustrating when you seek to operate in a world where the best practitioners and the senior Judges are fiercely intellectual and will eviscerate the second rate without mercy.
I agree with that - some brainy people do not make good practical lawyers. It is hard, however, to be a good barrister if you are not very bright, and the best barristers are without exception stunningly clever. I'm reasonably brainy, but one of the pleasures of my job is that I am surrounded by people who are far more brainy than me. It's very stimulating.
BTW, being good at crosswords proves only that you are good at crosswords. I have a first class degree from a posh university, but I could not complete even the simplest of crosswords if my life depended on it. At school, in those IQ tests that they used to give us, my scores were off the scale at the bottom end, equating to an IQ of minus 947 or something; but I was the highest achieving pupil in my year at a high achieving school. Minds work in various ways, which is why measures of intelligence are pretty much meaningless.
Snowboy, senior Solicitors used to call junior solicitors assistants, but nowadays they may have titles such as Associate. Solicitors used to have Articled Clerks, now called Trainee Solicitors.
Barristers have pupils. Pupils are themselves fresh-called barristers who are training to complete their entitlement to practise law. Being a pupil barrister is not a job in itself. It's a training role, but nowadays it tends to be quite well paid. When I did it in the 1980s there was no pay. Go back to the 1950s* and the pupil had to pay the barrister. Times change.
It sounds like your friend was either a pupil barrister, or a trainee or junior solicitor.
* Voting UKIP is the way to do this, apparently. Bonus free Polio, slum housing, and not many of those tiresome darkies! Oooh errrr! Bit of politics there, but not totally OT as the loon Shrimpton is a 'kipper.
Barristers have pupils. Pupils are themselves fresh-called barristers who are training to complete their entitlement to practise law. Being a pupil barrister is not a job in itself. It's a training role, but nowadays it tends to be quite well paid. When I did it in the 1980s there was no pay. Go back to the 1950s* and the pupil had to pay the barrister. Times change.
It sounds like your friend was either a pupil barrister, or a trainee or junior solicitor.
* Voting UKIP is the way to do this, apparently. Bonus free Polio, slum housing, and not many of those tiresome darkies! Oooh errrr! Bit of politics there, but not totally OT as the loon Shrimpton is a 'kipper.
So do I, but 10 PS suggested above an argument by analogy from decisions made in the context of the harassment legislation.
The prosecution affords us all a good laugh, and given that Shrimpton has hateful views and perhaps brings my profession into disrepute my heart does not bleed for him; but the case seems to me a waste of public resources on a non problem. Also, if as appears to me quite likely the prosecution fails, that will simply give the loon bragging rights. Nutjob conspiracy theorists are best ignored.
The prosecution affords us all a good laugh, and given that Shrimpton has hateful views and perhaps brings my profession into disrepute my heart does not bleed for him; but the case seems to me a waste of public resources on a non problem. Also, if as appears to me quite likely the prosecution fails, that will simply give the loon bragging rights. Nutjob conspiracy theorists are best ignored.
The CPS can undermine the beliefs in the sense of showing that they are plainly irrational, but not, I think, in the sense of showing that the loon does not hold the beliefs that he claims to hold.
I am not sure that the Willoughby line will work for the CPS here. We are a of course long way from the issues in a plea of self defence to a murder charge, but in that context the belief in imminent attack can be as subjective as you like. I know pretty much Jack about criminal law, and I CBA to look this up, but would have thought that the issue of whether the belief can be perverse but still afford a defence to the charge of murder would have come up and been ruled on by now.
Back in context, we all know that criminal law usually construes penal statutes in the manner most favourable to the citizen and least favourable to the State. The argument here would be that if Parliament had intended to criminalise irrational belief in a bomb threat, it would have done so in terms.
There may be case law on this, but as I say it's not my field and I CBA to research the point. Maybe Zeeky knows of a case or two on the subject.
I am not sure that the Willoughby line will work for the CPS here. We are a of course long way from the issues in a plea of self defence to a murder charge, but in that context the belief in imminent attack can be as subjective as you like. I know pretty much Jack about criminal law, and I CBA to look this up, but would have thought that the issue of whether the belief can be perverse but still afford a defence to the charge of murder would have come up and been ruled on by now.
Back in context, we all know that criminal law usually construes penal statutes in the manner most favourable to the citizen and least favourable to the State. The argument here would be that if Parliament had intended to criminalise irrational belief in a bomb threat, it would have done so in terms.
There may be case law on this, but as I say it's not my field and I CBA to research the point. Maybe Zeeky knows of a case or two on the subject.
Public policy question: The law protects us from malicious bomb hoaxers. Should it protect us from bewildered loonies?
I wonder if the Robin Hood Airport joke bomb threat case has any bearing on this. There the bloke was not a loony. He was taking the piss. He was wrongly convicted by some idiot Magistrate and rightly cleared on appeal. I read the judgment in that case but have now forgotten what it says.
I wonder if the Robin Hood Airport joke bomb threat case has any bearing on this. There the bloke was not a loony. He was taking the piss. He was wrongly convicted by some idiot Magistrate and rightly cleared on appeal. I read the judgment in that case but have now forgotten what it says.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff