John Humphrys - Should Judges Swear?

August 12, 2016, 11:18 AM GMT+0

An august public body, with the grand-sounding title of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, has launched an inquiry into the behaviour of a judge presiding over a case at Chelmsford crown court.

Judge Patricia Lynch, QC used a four-letter word that is deemed unacceptable in polite society never mind from the judicial bench. There were, inevitably, complaints. But the judge has also been hailed as a ‘hero’ and a ‘role model’. Should judges be allowed to be foul-mouthed?

It scarcely needs saying that Judge Lynch’s remarks did not come out of the blue. Nor was she reacting like a yob on the terraces when the referee makes a dodgy call. Rather, she was responding to the way John Hennigan responded when she sentenced him to eighteen months for insulting a black Caribbean woman in a Harlow supermarket and for breaching an antisocial behaviour order for the ninth time in eleven years.

Judge Lynch had told him: ‘Your offence is thoroughly unpleasant. It’s said that custody would be distressing for you but it seems you never learn. This is the ninth time that you have breached this order, the same offensive, racist comments and you don’t deserve another chance.’

Hennigan then launched a tirade against her, culminating in his telling her she was ‘a bit of a c**t’. To which she replied: ‘You are a bit of a c**t yourself. Being offensive to me doesn’t help.’ He then shouted back: ‘Go f*** yourself!’ ‘You too,’ she replied.

Hennigan banged on the glass panel of the dock, gave a Nazi salute, shouted ‘Sieg Heil’ and started to sing ‘Jews, gas them all …’ Judge Lynch ended the confrontation by saying: ‘We are all really impressed. Take him down.’

News of this encounter went viral, with one Twitter user calling the judge ‘my new idol’ and another nominating her ‘a contender for our hero of the day/month/year’.

But of course Judge Lynch’s behaviour is not what most of us would expect in a judge. Nor is it consistent with the way judges are taught to behave. They are trained very carefully to conduct themselves in ways designed to enhance their authority and entrench respect for the judicial system. That’s what wigs are supposed to be all about. Judges are even taught how to walk into the courtroom (when everyone has to stand up): they are supposed to do it slowly and with an air of gravity. The effect on defendants is said to be remarkable. Foul-mouthed thugs exuding aggression and contempt for the whole system when they are down in the cells before being brought up to court, turn meek and well-behaved once they arrive. Serious language, eschewing the vernacular of the street, is part of the judicial armoury to bring this about.

But there is another point of view as to how judges should go about gaining respect for the system. Some say they should take off their wigs, metaphorically if not literally. They should show that they and the whole judicial system are not set apart from the real world that the rest of us inhabit but are part of it themselves. The occasional outburst in the language heard on the street – even foul-mouthed abuse such as this – can enhance judges’ standing in the eyes of those over whose cases they preside.

John Cooper, QC, a barrister who has sparred against Judge Lynch in the courts before, went to print in her aid. He wrote in The Times: ‘she is human – and the more our judges are seen as relevant human beings, rather than snobbish out-of-touch mannequins, the better the reputation of the law’.

No doubt in due course the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office will produce a report on the affair. A mere journalist quakes at the presumption of predicting its verdict, but it seems likely there will be a mild rap on the knuckles rather than either a recommendation that all other judges should follow her example or that Judge Lynch should f*** off from the bench.

We shall see. Meanwhile, what’s your view of whether Judge Lynch should have spoken as she did?

Let us know.