Constance Briscoe - another PCOJ charge
Discussion
The judge accused in the Huhne/Pryce case earlier in the year has been charged with a second count I see. I wonder if this will be the end of that particular case, or is there more to come out?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25413710
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25413710
ked.Jasandjules said:
Good.
If they did this more often we might actually have an honest judiciary.
In general I think we have an honest judiciary. There was no doubt there was a fair bit of 'favouritism' in the 70s and 80s, although this was balanced to a great extent by the quality of most of the judges. But they did have different upbringings from the rest of the population and interpreted matters according to a strange and wonderful morality, one that did not always sit comfortably with the rest of us. If you go back to the 60s and 70s, these were frequently criticised in some of the newspapers and the then new satirical television programmes, such as Monty Python and TW3.If they did this more often we might actually have an honest judiciary.
The selection methods have moved on a bit, although one wonders if many of the lower middle classes see judging as a target. However, there are some positive moves although some of the selections seem to be based on qualities other than their ability to be judges.
But judges who are heavily criticised and have political leanings are not dealt wit, presumably due to the system. Eady, for instance, pushed new, some would say made up, privacy laws despite the government not feeling it was a matter for legislation. He must have been one of the most heavily criticised judges in the various appeal courts - I did have a collection of quotes about him readily available after his 'not nazi' decision in the Mosley case but I've just been archiving files and those have gone to an external hard drive. Quite enlightening. But one wondered why he wasn't kicked into touch.
Such things are not corrupt of course. Just to make that very clear.
But it did make one wonder just how much authority was in the hands of those who just don't get it. We don't vote them in but in many ways they have more authority than MPs. And they just go on and one.
I've met a few judges in my time, including be the police liaison between the resident judges of both Sussexes, and I have to say I've been universally impressed. We are served well by most. But there were one or two on the circuit whom everyone dreaded.
In deciding how our judiciary rates, we can only, I feel, compare them with judges of other countries, and that way, I believe, we come out rather well. Still room for improvement, but no reason to sack the lot of them.
Just some when it is shown that they can't quite cut it.
I know this brings risks, but allowing poor initial decisions is even riskier.
David Eady is much maligned by the tabloid media because he finds against them when they publish falsehoods and trash people's lives. You should read his judgments, not quotes about him. Parliament legislated to protect privacy when it passed the HRA.
The judiciary in general are honest and competent, albeit imperfect, and you still get more flaky ones in the lower echelons. From High Court up they are generally pretty good to excellent, and nowadays they are much more pleasant than they used to be.
The judiciary in general are honest and competent, albeit imperfect, and you still get more flaky ones in the lower echelons. From High Court up they are generally pretty good to excellent, and nowadays they are much more pleasant than they used to be.
A friend of mine has what might be considered a complicated life. A number of what seem like injustices against him, an inability of his and his adversaries' to settle disputes amicably, for some time a bankruptcy and mental instability/ depression to boot have conspired to put him in front of various civil and criminal courts over the past 5 years. Most of it his own fault, ultimately.
I've sat in with him in front of a number of judges in the High Court (including Briggs, Pelling and Sharp), all of whom have displayed an unbelievable ability to keep proceedings on track, despite my friend being a litigant in person and making 2 hour hearings last all day. In the whole their knowledge of what have been hugely, hugely complicated histories of proceedings (as an example, my friend has a civil restraint order against him meaning he has to apply for permission to the High Court before being able to launch proceedings), is astounding.
He's also appeared in the Court of Appeal, local county court, Magistrate's and Crown. Almost entirely as a litigant in person.
Yes, some of the judges have made mistakes (usually by ruling in my friend's favour in the first instance), but the system of appeals has picked those up and dealt with them proportionately.
I couldn't be more impressed with the individuals, their ability at grasping the cases and holding knowledge, and the system that allows individuals fight their corner against FTSE listed companies and individuals alike whilst delivering the same standard of care.
None of it is perfect, but then neither the system, the people or the law is, for everybody, nor could it ever be.
If I had a comment on this case, I'd say the judiciary should be careful of over-weighting the diversity needs against the fundamental quality required.
I've sat in with him in front of a number of judges in the High Court (including Briggs, Pelling and Sharp), all of whom have displayed an unbelievable ability to keep proceedings on track, despite my friend being a litigant in person and making 2 hour hearings last all day. In the whole their knowledge of what have been hugely, hugely complicated histories of proceedings (as an example, my friend has a civil restraint order against him meaning he has to apply for permission to the High Court before being able to launch proceedings), is astounding.
He's also appeared in the Court of Appeal, local county court, Magistrate's and Crown. Almost entirely as a litigant in person.
Yes, some of the judges have made mistakes (usually by ruling in my friend's favour in the first instance), but the system of appeals has picked those up and dealt with them proportionately.
I couldn't be more impressed with the individuals, their ability at grasping the cases and holding knowledge, and the system that allows individuals fight their corner against FTSE listed companies and individuals alike whilst delivering the same standard of care.
None of it is perfect, but then neither the system, the people or the law is, for everybody, nor could it ever be.
If I had a comment on this case, I'd say the judiciary should be careful of over-weighting the diversity needs against the fundamental quality required.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Wednesday 18th December 07:02
10 Pence Short said:
A friend of mine has what might be considered a complicated life. A number of what seem like injustices against him, an inability of his and his adversaries' to settle disputes amicably, for some time a bankruptcy and mental instability/ depression to boot have conspired to put him in front of various civil and criminal courts over the past 5 years. Most of it his own fault, ultimately.
I've sat in with him in front of a number of judges in the High Court (including Briggs, Pelling and Sharp), all of whom have displayed an unbelievable ability to keep proceedings on track, despite my friend being a litigant in person and making 2 hour hearings last all day. In the whole their knowledge of what have been hugely, hugely complicated histories of proceedings (as an example, my friend has a civil restraint order against him meaning he has to apply for permission to the High Court before being able to launch proceedings), is astounding.
He's also appeared in the Court of Appeal, local county court, Magistrate's and Crown. Almost entirely as a litigant in person.
Yes, some of the judges have made mistakes (usually by ruling in my friend's favour in the first instance), but the system of appeals has picked those up and dealt with them proportionately.
I couldn't be more impressed with the individuals, their ability at grasping the cases and holding knowledge, and the system that allows individuals fight their corner against FTSE listed companies and individuals alike whilst delivering the same standard of care.
None of it is perfect, but then neither the system, the people or the law is, for everybody, nor could it ever be.
If I had a comment on this case, I'd say the judiciary should be careful of over-weighting the diversity needs against the fundamental quality required.
I have seen a number of judges in action and I do not recognise this 'all' you speak of.I've sat in with him in front of a number of judges in the High Court (including Briggs, Pelling and Sharp), all of whom have displayed an unbelievable ability to keep proceedings on track, despite my friend being a litigant in person and making 2 hour hearings last all day. In the whole their knowledge of what have been hugely, hugely complicated histories of proceedings (as an example, my friend has a civil restraint order against him meaning he has to apply for permission to the High Court before being able to launch proceedings), is astounding.
He's also appeared in the Court of Appeal, local county court, Magistrate's and Crown. Almost entirely as a litigant in person.
Yes, some of the judges have made mistakes (usually by ruling in my friend's favour in the first instance), but the system of appeals has picked those up and dealt with them proportionately.
I couldn't be more impressed with the individuals, their ability at grasping the cases and holding knowledge, and the system that allows individuals fight their corner against FTSE listed companies and individuals alike whilst delivering the same standard of care.
None of it is perfect, but then neither the system, the people or the law is, for everybody, nor could it ever be.
If I had a comment on this case, I'd say the judiciary should be careful of over-weighting the diversity needs against the fundamental quality required.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Wednesday 18th December 07:02
There is no doubt in my mind that we have a better judiciary than we deserve, and that some of the judges are admirable. However, there are some who struggle with the position. More to the point, who they are is well known, yet little is done. Their decisions are so predictable that it was easy to know which court the court officer should attend.
But, as I say, the measure should be along the lines of which country's judges would we swop for.
It has always been about choice of judges, and the reasons for certain ones being picked is not so easy to fathom as case seems.
Derek, my comment was regards all the judges I have seen at first hand. I do wish you would read and at least try to understand what is being said before being contrary.
No doubt there are judges on the circuits with their own agendas and probably some with poor judgement (Briscoe being a case in point) but, on the whole, we have a very good system, which is one of the few things we agree on.
No doubt there are judges on the circuits with their own agendas and probably some with poor judgement (Briscoe being a case in point) but, on the whole, we have a very good system, which is one of the few things we agree on.
It's worth mentioning that Briscoe was a Recorder - she sat as a Judge about 15 days a year. She's mainly a barrister. Also, she might be guilty or she might be innocent, although many here appear to assume guilt.
Judicial selection procedures are much improved these days, and Judges receive quite a lot of training. There are still a few who say stupid things and enrage the Mail and the PH massive, but, as always, "Judge makes correct decision" is not newsworthy.
Judicial selection procedures are much improved these days, and Judges receive quite a lot of training. There are still a few who say stupid things and enrage the Mail and the PH massive, but, as always, "Judge makes correct decision" is not newsworthy.
Breadvan72 said:
Indeed. Every thread that mentions this case has a faint whiff of something slightly unpleasant about it. Moderately successful female from ethnic minority = extra Schadenfreude rations, it appears.
One does have to be careful not to see unacceptable prejudice everywhere though, if nothing else for fear of it tainting the cases of those who are genuinely on the receiving end of such unacceptable behaviour.As we have seen people are capable of quite unacceptable behaviour regardless of sex, race, religion or orientation. To dismiss an allegation of wrong doing made against someone who is not a WASP on the grounds that they are only being pursued because they are not a WASP is disingenuous and I strongly suspect highly offensive to those who are not WASPs and have achieved goals that, in darker times, were the preserve of WASPs.
With Mr Hulme I see a fool who was unable to face up to his mistakes and accept the consequences of them.
With Ms Pryce I see an ambitious lady who has apparently succeeded in her chosen field (to a large degree) but who, for whatever reason given that this is hotly debated, chose to lie in legal proceedings. Ultimately she was caught out, almost exclusively as a result of her desire to seek revenge against Mr Hulme, and was sentenced accordingly.
With Ms Briscoe I see a moderately successful woman who is alleged to have assisted her friend, Ms Pryce, in extracting her revenge against her former husband. From the information in the public domain and that I have seen I have no idea as to her guilt or otherwise and it is not for me to determine this. What I do know is that if there is any substance in the allegations against her and she is found guilty she will be in deeper water than either of the other parties as she has absolutely no excuse for not knowing where the line is drawn.
Given that there are now 3 charges against her even if she is innocent it will be very difficult for her career to recover from this. Fact of life regardless of her sex or race. BV72 knows as well as anyone that whilst the SRA will happily hang any solicitor out to dry for the smallest of breaches of the rules, even where no harm is occasioned, it takes some serious commitment on the part of the CPS to authorise one charge of PCOJ against someone in her position, let alone three.
Do I find pleasure in seeing a person like Ms Briscoe in this position? No I do not, yet if she is guilty I will rejoice at the departure of a rotten apple from the legal profession. We are lucky in that there are very few and that we have very good controls, as a profession, in place to remove such individuals. The legal profession is not well liked as most people only come into contact with it when things are not going their way and/or are stressful, the last thing we need is anyone who believes that their own needs and desires are above those and the principles they swore to uphold and obey.
Devil2575 said:
10 Pence Short said:
If I had a comment on this case, I'd say the judiciary should be careful of over-weighting the diversity needs against the fundamental quality required.
?What has this got to do with this case?
Breadvan72 said:
I don't suggest that gender or ethnicity had the slightest thing to do with the decision to prosecute, and if Briscoe is guilty she should take the rap. My comment was on the commentary directed to this case by some.
My comment was purely that selection should be purely on merit. In times when pressure to positively discriminate can be present whether explicit or otherwise, there's a risk that less suitable individuals are hired.Nothing in my opinion suggests Briscoe's alleged criminality is anything to do with her sex, race or any characteristic.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff