REVIEWS
| Date | 01 January 1972 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1972.tb01321.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1972 |
REVIEWS
THE ENGLISH JUDGE.
By
HENRY
CECIL
(HIS
HONOUR JUDGE LEON).
The
Hamlyn
Lectures.
1970
[London:
Stevens
and
Sons.
177
pp.
€1-75.1
HENRY
Cecil’s Hamlyn lectures are an attempt to provide
a
profile of the
modern judge “with all his virtues and imperfections” but although he marks
a
few minor blemishes here and there this book will hardly serve
as
a
serlous
critique or even evaluation of the subject.
One extremely curious feature
of
the book is the constant use Cecil makes
of views about the judges of people he consulted. The nature of this process
of consultation
is
never revealed but we learn that before writing
his
lectures
Cecil
“made extensive inquiries from most sections of the population (in and
out of prison) to find out what people, who are able
to
express an opinion,
think of the present judges.” The book is larded with lengthy quotations from
unidentified sources notably students, schoolboys, and journalists-which are
apparently put forward
as
representative of their particular group.
(A
typical example, except that
it
is brief, is the paragraph “Both sides of
industry give the judge
a
good character.
A
distinguished trade unionist
has
an enormous admiration for judges and has been ‘impressed and struck not
only with the justice they dispense but with their fairness and helpfulness in
seeking to establish the truth.’ While from
the
management side comes the
comment that judges are human and subject to the frailties of human nature
but that their ability must always be undoubted.”)
This is hardly above the level of journalism-with the difference that the
journalist usually identifies those he is quoting.
As
a
way of revealing what
people think about judges
it
is
manifestly and totally inadequate since no
information is given
as
to what questions were put, nor how those consulted
were thought to be representative of any group of the community, nor to what
extent others consulted held the same or different
views.
It
is difficult to credit
that the endless quotations are put forward seriously
as
representative and
yet,
if
they are not, what is their role?
If
they are there
as
a
more dramatic
way of expressing opinions for discussion, the device seems
a
clumsy one
which takes an enormous ‘amount of space to little advantage, and which is
open to the serious objection that
it
lends
a
spurious air of importance to the
views
quoted.
however of the content?
But this is to criticise what is mainly an unhappy stylisbic technique. What
The views expressed are mainly ciyilised, liberal,
humane. Judges should not for instance allow their personal feelings to
obtrude; even when convinced of the guilt of
a
defendant they should never
sum
up for
a
conviction-even though the public would not necessarily blame
a
judge who did.
On judicial manners, Cecil criticises the few amongst his brethren who do
“
occasionally say wounding
or
hurtful things to
or
about witnesses, counsel or
solicitors and tlie person concerned has no remedy.” Sometimes the reason vas
simply that the judge had not fully considered the impact his remarks would
have
(“You
are
a
worthless woman,” said when sentencing
a
defendant to
a
year‘s suspended sentence.) One of the troubles was that
a
judge
“
is treated
in court with
a
subservience and flattery which probably obtains nowhere
else and
as
he probably gets
a
similar kind of treatment outside court, it isn’t
good for some of
us.”
Quite frequently the victims of these off-the-cuff
criticisms were solicitors and not infrequently they turned out to be completely
unjustified.
Cecil suggests that this would not happen if
all
judges had to serve a
probationary period
as
Recorder which would weed
out
the most obviously
To continue reading
Request your trial