‘Some barristers will be turning in their graves,’ the Gazette’s news editor said. He could have added ‘and a number of judges’.
We were talking about a barrister fined £3,000 and ordered to pay nearly as much in costs after being filmed drinking in the car park at Snaresbrook Crown Court one lunchtime during a case.
There was no suggestion that the barrister was impaired but the chair of the Bar’s Disciplinary Committee warned that, while drinking at lunchtime was not prohibited, it was to be frowned upon, because this might lower the bar in the public perception.
More by Morton
In the bad old days, barristers used to pile across the road to a very decent Italian restaurant opposite the Old Bailey for lunch and a couple of glasses of wine. And although I never heard of an appeal on the grounds that the barrister was unfit, this case might open the floodgates.
And what about judges? In the 19th century, judges in Scotland were given a bottle of port to help them through the hearings. It did not stop there. Norman Birkett, on appointment to the Court of Appeal, was asked to keep an eye on fellow judges who tended to nod off after a judicial but injudicious lunch. Not, of course, that judges (or magistrates) slept while on the bench – they thought with their eyes shut. One in the Home Counties had a very bad temper, only ameliorated by regular pit stops throughout the hearing.
And what about bibulous evenings in El Vino and other watering holes? Is an evening on the claret worse than a snifter at lunchtime?
In these days of wokedom, how are we to put an end to this pernicious culture? Random breath tests are a possibility. As with stop-and-search, however, these may be subject to complaints of group discrimination by, say, the over-50s. Compulsory testing seems to be the answer. Failure will lead to fines and periods of suspension that may be lessened by attendance at AA meetings. It may be hard on the wine bars and Avery’s, but lawyers have always been keen on pro bono publico.
No comments yet