As Andrew’s employer has shown, the correct mode of address for judges is “Enemy of The People”.
In the meantime, this “PC Wokery” sounds like a dangerous cad. I hope his sergeant yanks him into line before he infects anybody else.
(Explainer for anybody curious about thicko @toryboypierce’s moronising: judges in certain lower courts are now to be addressed as “judge”, on the woke basis that they are, well, judges. In Crown Courts, they will still be Your Honour. In High Court and above, still My Lord/Lady)
For further reference, I touch on modes of address for judges in #NothingButTheTruth. Should sweary bestselling books about criminal justice be up your alleyway.
(For completeness, I should point out that the changes also affect Masters, a type of judge who sits in the High Court. But the other changes affect lower courts such as District Judges sitting in magistrates’ courts).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Irresponsible is cutting 21,000 police officers and a quarter of Crown Prosecutors. Meaning it often takes around two years - at least - simply for a suspect to be charged.
Meaning that potentially dangerous people are free to roam the streets.
Irresponsible is selling off nearly half the court estate, meaning that people have to travel for hours to their local court (and so many simply don’t). It means witnesses and victims are deterred from the outset.
2. Dominic Raab ignored his own government’s independent report into criminal legal aid, refusing to implement the urgent funding that the report said was needed “as soon as possible” to prevent the system collapsing. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
An illustration of the crisis in criminal justice:
We are working to capacity. All available judges, courts & barristers working flat out
In the past two weeks, I have had two trials adjourned for “lack of court time”
Each case is from 2019 and has been adjourned TWICE before.
This has nothing to do with barristers’ industrial action. It is not because of Covid.
It is due to a chronic lack of resourcing, which has seen courts sold off and underused, insufficient judges recruited and a quarter of criminal barristers forced out of the profession.
We have warned of the problems in the courts for *years*. Long before Covid, we urged the government to stop cutting criminal justice to the bone. MPs even had their own, crowdfunded, personal guide to the problems: theguardian.com/law/2018/apr/0…
For those who have asked, after careful consideration, I have decided to vote NO to the government's offer to the Criminal Bar.
My reasons for doing so are no better nor worthy of note than anybody else's, but what is Twitter without solipsism? So here goes.
1. The government's own independent review urged an immediate 15% increase as a *bare minimum* back in November 2021. It was intended to be a large, above-inflation increase to reflect the perilous position of the profession, the attrition rate, and the 28% cut.
2. This, as Sir Christopher Bellamy said in the review, was not "an opening bid". It was the minimum needed, as soon as possible, to ensure the system functioned.
The government refused to act.
A year later that 15% has been wiped out by inflation. But the problems remain.
In today’s episode of “Things I Didn’t Expect To Say When I Started Tweeting As An Anonymous Lawsplaining Rabbit”, may I place on record my thanks to Leonardo Di Caprio’s new alleged love interest for what I think we can all agree is her exquisite taste in literature.
Not *just* a law book, MailOnline. A Sunday Times bestselling law book exploring the popular myths we are fed about our justice system by those in power, from the author of fellow bestsellers “Stories of the Law and How it’s Broken” and “Nothing But The Truth”. Oh yes.
Because here’s the thing that people like @jcartlidgemp fail to grasp.
Criminal barristers don’t just defend.
We don’t just prosecute.
Our independence means that we do both. We have the experience of both, which makes us better at both.
He wants to abolish this.
Insanity.
What @jcartlidgemp has done is read the stories like this, of a growing shortage of specialist criminal barristers available to prosecute serious crime, and think to himself:
“The solution is to ban barristers from prosecuting”.