James Morton delves into legal nicknames, the history of same-sex partnerships, the case of a missing defendant in a murder trial – and the lawyer who struck it rich on a game show

There are always stories of lawyers who ask one question too many or do not get the right answer, but I came across a splendid one in Australia when I was there recently. It dates back to the 1950s when one police officer, whom I shall call Frederick Smith, was giving evidence. He had the nickname ‘Thumper’, for reasons which were easy to understand. The allegation was that he had ‘bricked’ the defendant – the Australian term that combines both the planting and invention of evidence. The cross-examination went along these lines:


Defending counsel: is it right you have a nickname among your colleagues?


A: Yes sir.


Q: Would you care to tell us what it is?


A: Yes sir.


Q: And what is it?


A: Honest Fred.


Collapse of stout counsel, as Punch might have said.


And on the subject of Punch, I was in New Zealand when a judge was telling me about a police officer who was known as ‘Punch’. Is that because he was once a boxer? I asked ingenuously. ‘No,’ said the judge. And that was the end of that conversation.

***

I was talking to a New York lawyer the other day who was telling me about a case she had when the defendant in an attempted murder trial – it was a stabbing in a dispute over the sale of loose cigarettes – disappeared after the jury had been sworn in. That was the crucial part of the proceedings. Once the jury had been sworn, the trial could go ahead in the absence of her client.


Now she was left to fight the case, which had been one of self- defence, with what is called an ‘empty chair’ beside her. In fact, she managed to get the attempted murder knocked out. The man was not arrested on the minor charges and that of breaking bail for something like five years. The local community – feeling sorry for him and that the man who was selling ‘loosies’ rather had it coming to him – had been thwarting the police for all that time.


When it came to it, the defendant seems not to have been at all grateful to her in getting the attempted murder dismissed, instead alleging she was in it with the police. Such are the trials and tribulations of being a defender.


I did, however, think that there were some merits in this. If the defendant does not turn up then, unless there are very good reasons for his absence, why not go straight ahead with the trial on the basis of a not-guilty plea?


***

With the advent of the civil partnership, it is instructive to look back and see that the last attempt to make lesbianism a crime came some 85 years ago. That it had not been included in 1885 by Henri Labouchère’s late amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Act that dealt with male behaviour is always said to have been a result of an unwillingness to explain the term to Queen Victoria.

Then, in 1921, a Scots Tory MP called Frederick McQuisten moved an amendment to outlaw lesbianism, and he received some support from Sir Ernest Wild, later an Old Bailey judge who is said to have opposed the conduct on the grounds that it stopped childbirth. Wild received support from the gallant Colonel JTC Moore Brabazon, who thought the House was dealing with ‘abnormalities of the brain’, while the Lord Chancellor thought he could be bold enough to say that ‘out of every 1,000 women, 999 have never even heard a whisper of these practices. Among all these homes in this country… the taint of this noxious and horrible suspicion is to be imparted’. Eighty-plus years later, some things, at any rate, have changed for the better.


However, with the best intentions in the world, problems can arise. I read that in New York a homosexual man, charged with helping his lover steal something in the region of $219,00 from a wealthy school, has asked a judge to rule that state law protecting spouses from having to testify against each other should also apply to same-sex partners. The man pleaded guilty to his part in the affair and agreed to testify against the other defendants who included his long-time partner. Now a motion has been filed trying to exclude the evidence on the grounds that the men deserve the same protection as a heterosexual couple.


***


While in San Francisco, I spent early evenings watching my favourite quiz show, ‘Jeopardy!’ For those who have never seen it, three contestants have to answer a series of questions on subjects that may range from dealing with Tudor monarchs, to American baseball heroes, or to even what rhymes. So the answer to ‘Who is William Tell’s girlfriend?’ would be ‘Swiss Miss’. It is enormous fun. I also came across a San Francisco lawyer, Bruce Seymour, who in the early 1990s won so much money that he gave up practice and wrote a book on the celebrated 19th century actress-cum-courtesan-cum-dancer-cum-destroyer of Ludwig I of Bavaria, Lola Montez. He has never worked as a lawyer again. Why can’t we have the game over here? Lawyers would be killed in the crush trying to get into the studio.


James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist