Richard Terrence Peter Hollingworth was until recently a district judge, as well as adjudicating immigration cases.
Faced with a case involving a victim whose name was Patel, he shocked prosecutors by demanding that she should attend court the same afternoon, because someone with that name and ethnic background probably worked in a shop or off-licence and wouldn't have any difficulty taking time off work. "She won't be working anywhere important."
I'm sure judges make stupid remarks all the time, but on this occasion the prosecutor (rightly) made a fuss, and the judge is now (rightly) sacked.
Although the racism is unpleasant, that is not the only shocking element of the story. The point about being a judge is that you are not supposed to jump to conclusions, racist or otherwise. Although judges may well believe privately that working class jobs are less important than proper jobs (like, for example, law) they shouldn't base their decisions on these beliefs. And the notion that someone working in a shop (or off-licence) can easily take time off at short notice shows gross ignorance about how the other half live. Let's not jump to conclusions, but when an Englishman has three or more
Christian names and an old English surname this can be an indicator of class background.
As it turned out, the victim of Mr Hollingworth's racism doesn't work in a shop. She is 20 years old and studying law. She was horrified to learn about the judge's remarks.
If Mr Hollingworth had said "oh, she's only a student, studying isn't a proper job", he'd probably have gotten away with it.
Perhaps now Mr Hollingworth can go back to college and study law properly. Or he should try working in an off-licence. At least from now on he won't be working anywhere important. As the Hollingworth family motto says, "Disce ferenda pati: learn to suffer what must be borne".
Immigration judge Peter Hollingworth faces race remark investigation (BBC News, 7 December 2014)
Nigel Bunyan, Judge resigns after making racist remark about victim (Guardian, 7 December 2014)
Ben Tufft, Immigration judge Richard Hollingworth forced to resign after racial slur: 'With a name like Patel, she won't be working anywhere important' (Independent, 7 December 2014)
News Release: Judge Hollingworth (8 December 2014). Judge Peter James Michael Hollingworth, 63, who sits as a judge in the
First Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal and also as a Deputy District
Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) wishes to make clear that
he has no connection with Judge Terence Richard Peter Hollingworth, 63,
who sat in the same courts and who you reported as having resigned from
the Magistrates’ Court and being under investigation as an Immigration
Judge.
Wikipedia: Hollingworth Surname
Wikipedia: Bourne and Hollingsworth
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Monday, December 08, 2014
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Asking Stupid Questions
A judge has criticized a jury for asking stupid questions. I am not a lawyer, but I've always understood that the jury is an essential component of our legal system, and I'm sure the judge will have been careful not to express his criticism in a form that could be interpreted as contempt.
But what counts as a stupid question?
1. Some say there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. When Bill Gates asks "What is a network?", this could either be interpreted to mean that Bill Gates is stupid or alternatively that he is very clever. (Smart money goes with the second of these two possibilities.) See my post What's the difference between judges and geeks? (April 2010).
2. A common purpose of a stupid question is to prompt a useful answer or insight. Socrates used to ask dumb questions to make his pupils think more deeply about some subject - this technique is known as maieutic (from the Greek word for midwife).
3. Where a group is required to come to some judgement, such as a jury trial, a member of the group may request clarification on some point, not because she is personally unclear about this point, but because she believes some other member of the group may be unclear. (So for example, if one jury member kept talking about religious belief, another member might pose a question to the judge to confirm that religious belief was not relevant to the case.)
4. This particular case raises challenging legal questions that have not been tested in court for a very long time. Where the defence of marital coercion relies on a private and unrecorded exchange between husband and wife, the interpretation of such common phrases as "reasonable doubt" may become problematic, as does the fine line between inference and speculation. A stupid jury might not have been troubled by such ambiguities, and the judge clearly expected them not to be troubled. @davidallengreen (Jack of Kent) affirms that "we should not be shocked that a jury dares to ask basic questions; we should be concerned that juries do not ask basic questions more often."
5. If the judge offers an opinion about the jury's competence without being aware of the discussion and group dynamics that may have given rise to the jury's questions, this appears to be based on speculation rather than inference. It's a fine line, of course.
But what counts as a stupid question?
1. Some say there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. When Bill Gates asks "What is a network?", this could either be interpreted to mean that Bill Gates is stupid or alternatively that he is very clever. (Smart money goes with the second of these two possibilities.) See my post What's the difference between judges and geeks? (April 2010).
2. A common purpose of a stupid question is to prompt a useful answer or insight. Socrates used to ask dumb questions to make his pupils think more deeply about some subject - this technique is known as maieutic (from the Greek word for midwife).
3. Where a group is required to come to some judgement, such as a jury trial, a member of the group may request clarification on some point, not because she is personally unclear about this point, but because she believes some other member of the group may be unclear. (So for example, if one jury member kept talking about religious belief, another member might pose a question to the judge to confirm that religious belief was not relevant to the case.)
4. This particular case raises challenging legal questions that have not been tested in court for a very long time. Where the defence of marital coercion relies on a private and unrecorded exchange between husband and wife, the interpretation of such common phrases as "reasonable doubt" may become problematic, as does the fine line between inference and speculation. A stupid jury might not have been troubled by such ambiguities, and the judge clearly expected them not to be troubled. @davidallengreen (Jack of Kent) affirms that "we should not be shocked that a jury dares to ask basic questions; we should be concerned that juries do not ask basic questions more often."
5. If the judge offers an opinion about the jury's competence without being aware of the discussion and group dynamics that may have given rise to the jury's questions, this appears to be based on speculation rather than inference. It's a fine line, of course.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Judicial Ethics
@LanguageLog defends a Canadian judge against a charge of plagiarism (Is "plagiarism" in a judicial decision wrong?)
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has recently overturned a decision by Justice Joel Groves on the unusual grounds that the judge's written decision was largely copied from the submission of the plaintiffs, thus creating the unfortunate impression that the judge had been insufficiently diligent in considering both sides of the case.
The written record of a judge's decision serves several purposes. It provides an explanation to the losing side, as well as being a document that can be used by lawyers to predict the outcome of similar cases in future. Above all, it provides evidence that justice has been done.
In the event of a decision being inadequately documented, we might imagine that the proper course of action would be to invite the judge to expand and clarify his decision, and to address any points that he had failed to cover. Obviously this revised document might still be subject to the normal appeal process.
Instead of adopting this course of action, the Court of Appeal (by a majority of two to one) has demanded an entirely new trial. Presumably the appeal judges deem this to be the best way of achieving the purposes stated above. A new trial will be costly and troublesome for both the plaintiffs and defendents, but it will put more money into the pockets of the lawyers. Cui Bono?
Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center, 2011 BCCA 192
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has recently overturned a decision by Justice Joel Groves on the unusual grounds that the judge's written decision was largely copied from the submission of the plaintiffs, thus creating the unfortunate impression that the judge had been insufficiently diligent in considering both sides of the case.
The written record of a judge's decision serves several purposes. It provides an explanation to the losing side, as well as being a document that can be used by lawyers to predict the outcome of similar cases in future. Above all, it provides evidence that justice has been done.
In the event of a decision being inadequately documented, we might imagine that the proper course of action would be to invite the judge to expand and clarify his decision, and to address any points that he had failed to cover. Obviously this revised document might still be subject to the normal appeal process.
Instead of adopting this course of action, the Court of Appeal (by a majority of two to one) has demanded an entirely new trial. Presumably the appeal judges deem this to be the best way of achieving the purposes stated above. A new trial will be costly and troublesome for both the plaintiffs and defendents, but it will put more money into the pockets of the lawyers. Cui Bono?
Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center, 2011 BCCA 192
Monday, December 10, 2007
In the Courts
Christmas approaches, and the courts are getting busy.
By an interesting twist of fate, the 57-year-old man is called John Darwin. He was caught by a woman who typed his name into Google, and found a photo on a "Move to Panama" website [Daily Mirror, December 6th 2007]. This "long-tail" detective (who doesn't wish to be named) has nominated Darwin and his wife for a "World's Dumbest" award.
But he doesn't qualify for a Darwin Award, contenders for which are required to kill or dismember themselves in some spectacularly stupid accident, preferably before passing on their genes, thus helping to remove their stupidity from the gene pool. John Darwin survived the canoeing accident (although some doubt there ever was a canoe), and his relatives (including his sons) are apparently trying to make things worse for him. So the stupidity lives on.
- In the western Greek city of Patras, a parrot is facing a $650 (£320; 444 euros) parking ticket. [BBC News]
- A judge in India has summoned two Hindu gods, Ram and Hanuman, to help resolve a property dispute. [BBC News]
- And a 57-year-old man who turned up alive five years after being presumed dead in a canoeing accident is due in court in the UK. [BBC News]
By an interesting twist of fate, the 57-year-old man is called John Darwin. He was caught by a woman who typed his name into Google, and found a photo on a "Move to Panama" website [Daily Mirror, December 6th 2007]. This "long-tail" detective (who doesn't wish to be named) has nominated Darwin and his wife for a "World's Dumbest" award.
But he doesn't qualify for a Darwin Award, contenders for which are required to kill or dismember themselves in some spectacularly stupid accident, preferably before passing on their genes, thus helping to remove their stupidity from the gene pool. John Darwin survived the canoeing accident (although some doubt there ever was a canoe), and his relatives (including his sons) are apparently trying to make things worse for him. So the stupidity lives on.
Update
- Legal case against God dismissed [BBC News, 16 October 2008]
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Justice 2
UK Immigration Minister Liam Byrne has been fined for using his mobile phone while driving. His excuse: he was taking an important call "on a deportation matter".
Source: BBC News, November 2nd 2007
As a former police minister, he presumably knows that's a pretty feeble excuse. But why does he think it is an excuse at all? Not only is he endangering the lives of other road-users by devoting half his attention to some deportation matter, but he is also endangering the life of some potential deportee by casually considering his case while devoting half his attention to the Sutton Coldfield one-way system.
Perhaps it wasn't intended as an excuse at all - more like a covert threat. Me, I'm an important member of the government, I make important decisions affecting people's lives, you'd better be nice to me or else ...
Next time he gets caught, I think he should say he'd been chatting to his mum. I've never met his mother, as far as I know, but I feel sure she would commit perjury for him if necessary. Surely nobody else would?
Source: BBC News, November 2nd 2007
As a former police minister, he presumably knows that's a pretty feeble excuse. But why does he think it is an excuse at all? Not only is he endangering the lives of other road-users by devoting half his attention to some deportation matter, but he is also endangering the life of some potential deportee by casually considering his case while devoting half his attention to the Sutton Coldfield one-way system.
Perhaps it wasn't intended as an excuse at all - more like a covert threat. Me, I'm an important member of the government, I make important decisions affecting people's lives, you'd better be nice to me or else ...
Next time he gets caught, I think he should say he'd been chatting to his mum. I've never met his mother, as far as I know, but I feel sure she would commit perjury for him if necessary. Surely nobody else would?
Justice
A van driver has been jailed for causing death by dangerous driving. After a heavy night drinking, he reported to work as normal; after recklessly using his mobile phone, he appears to have dozed off at the wheel, colliding with a family car and forcing it off the road. The only survivor was an 8-year-old boy; he has lost his parents and siblings, and is being cared for by his grandparents.
Source: BBC News November 2nd, 2007
Of course it is right that the van driver should go to prison. But what about the boy? I think there would be greater justice if the van driver had to work for the next ten years (not driving obviously) and paying child support to the boy's grandparents. (I never thought I'd be finding more work for the Child Support Agency, but there you go.) Once the boy has grown up, then the van driver can serve his sentence in prison.
The way our legal system works, of course, a solution like this simply isn't available. We are (perhaps rightly) wary of giving too much initiative to judges, who are required to adhere to complicated legislation and procedure, with sub-optimal results in particular cases. So I have a nostalgic fantasy of some system of village elders that might be able to produce real justice in particular cases.
Source: BBC News November 2nd, 2007
Of course it is right that the van driver should go to prison. But what about the boy? I think there would be greater justice if the van driver had to work for the next ten years (not driving obviously) and paying child support to the boy's grandparents. (I never thought I'd be finding more work for the Child Support Agency, but there you go.) Once the boy has grown up, then the van driver can serve his sentence in prison.
The way our legal system works, of course, a solution like this simply isn't available. We are (perhaps rightly) wary of giving too much initiative to judges, who are required to adhere to complicated legislation and procedure, with sub-optimal results in particular cases. So I have a nostalgic fantasy of some system of village elders that might be able to produce real justice in particular cases.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Judge Actions by their Effects
In an earlier post Glory Glory Knockdown Argument, I mentioned the curious detail of recent UK legislation, whereby infringements of laws restricting free speech are based on the effects produced by the speech on the audience.
In his latest article, This is now a protest for democracy, George Monbiot points out how the legal definition of harassment has now been extended to include pretty much anything that causes people to become alarmed or distressed. Any act of protest aimed at drawing some issue to public attention can now be interpreted as harassment.
We have always known that politicians and businessmen get upset when they are challenged, heckled or mocked. Two years ago, anti-terror legislation was used to suppress heckling at the Labour Party conference. Some people might be alarmed or distressed at the absence of heckling or even serious debate, but presumably that doesn't count.
POSIWID turns the law into a social construction - the legality of our actions depends on the subjective reactions of other people. We cannot tell in advance whether our words or actions will be illegal. Risk-averse law-abiding citizens will be careful to avoid causing offence to anyone - even those who deserve it. Meanwhile crooks and wide-boys will issue injunctions, and none will dare speak against them, except in carefully coded form.
In his latest article, This is now a protest for democracy, George Monbiot points out how the legal definition of harassment has now been extended to include pretty much anything that causes people to become alarmed or distressed. Any act of protest aimed at drawing some issue to public attention can now be interpreted as harassment.
We have always known that politicians and businessmen get upset when they are challenged, heckled or mocked. Two years ago, anti-terror legislation was used to suppress heckling at the Labour Party conference. Some people might be alarmed or distressed at the absence of heckling or even serious debate, but presumably that doesn't count.
POSIWID turns the law into a social construction - the legality of our actions depends on the subjective reactions of other people. We cannot tell in advance whether our words or actions will be illegal. Risk-averse law-abiding citizens will be careful to avoid causing offence to anyone - even those who deserve it. Meanwhile crooks and wide-boys will issue injunctions, and none will dare speak against them, except in carefully coded form.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Farce 2
As well as being the butt of more trouser-related humour than anyone since the late lamented Robertson Hare (see earlier post on Farce), Judge Roy Pearson has drawn international attention to the American legal system by claiming $27 million in damages from a firm of South Korean dry-cleaners.
The case has been dismissed, and costs awarded to the dry-cleaners [BBC News, June 25th 2007]. Given the ludicrous scale of the damages claimed, this may be regarded as a victory for common sense. Even though the Koreans were put out of business by the case, according to a later commentary by Anthony Lewis, Shall we get rid of the lawyers? (New York Review, Vol 56 No 6, April 2009)
But even if common sense at least partially prevailed, this itself raises some intriguing questions. Does Judge Pearson possess any common sense himself? Did he truly believe in the justice of his claim; did he bring the case in the cynical hope that the American legal system would be incapable of producing the common-sense verdict, or perhaps that his brilliant legal mind would dominate proceedings?
Alternatively, we might interpret this as a subversive action by a knowledgeable insider - an action designed to expose the surreal absurdity of the System. Does Judge Pearson have an agent already working on the TV appearances and the book deal? Or does our modern Don Quixote have any further legal challenges planned?
The case has been dismissed, and costs awarded to the dry-cleaners [BBC News, June 25th 2007]. Given the ludicrous scale of the damages claimed, this may be regarded as a victory for common sense. Even though the Koreans were put out of business by the case, according to a later commentary by Anthony Lewis, Shall we get rid of the lawyers? (New York Review, Vol 56 No 6, April 2009)
But even if common sense at least partially prevailed, this itself raises some intriguing questions. Does Judge Pearson possess any common sense himself? Did he truly believe in the justice of his claim; did he bring the case in the cynical hope that the American legal system would be incapable of producing the common-sense verdict, or perhaps that his brilliant legal mind would dominate proceedings?
Alternatively, we might interpret this as a subversive action by a knowledgeable insider - an action designed to expose the surreal absurdity of the System. Does Judge Pearson have an agent already working on the TV appearances and the book deal? Or does our modern Don Quixote have any further legal challenges planned?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)