Threatening the Monopoly of "Soft Justice"

Guess Who was Punished...


A judge told a career crook to slim down and get a job 

Peter Hitchens
The Mail On Sunday


Here is a perfect story of modern Britain. A judge has been publicly reprimanded by a Tory Cabinet Minister for advising a criminal to lose weight and get a job.

I do not know if the allegedly overweight offender took the well-meant advice, but I somehow doubt it. Having spotted the way power and morals are going in modern Britain, he made a formal complaint that the judge had used 'abusive language' – and it succeeded. I wonder if he is now also entitled to compensation?

The judge, Recorder Julian Malins QC, flatly refused to agree that he had done anything wrong. Partly because he stood up for himself in this way, he was given a formal warning by the then Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. Mr Gauke has since left this post but is, I believe, still a member of the 'Conservative' Party.

The official public notice from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), highly damaging to a judge's career, says that, in reaching their decision, Mr Gauke and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, 'took into consideration that the Recorder failed to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his conduct'.

The JCIO posted the reprimand on its website, but refuses to discuss the matter. I asked Mr Gauke to comment, asking him what was conservative about his action, and in what way he differed from the most politically correct wing of the Labour Party, but he has so far chosen not to do so. I do not know the identity of the criminal.

Mr Malins, 69, an experienced barrister, tells me he still has no regrets.
He says the defendant involved, who is now in his 50s, had appeared in court 40 times in 35 years, had accumulated 60 convictions and served several prison terms, including a lengthy sentence for GBH with intent. But on the day he came before Mr Malins, it was for a lesser matter and he was told he could go free. At that point the man interrupted proceedings to say a weight 'had been lifted from my shoulders'.

Mr Malins replied: 'You had better not worry about the weight off your shoulders, but should rather worry about the weight on your body.' The defendant then asked the judge to repeat himself, which he did.

Mr Malins, who tells me he is just over 5ft 10in and weighs just over 12½ stone, says the man was so fat he had to be helped into the dock. He responded to the complaint by politely telling the defendant in detail that he needed to lose weight and get a job. He explained this was for his own sake and the good of society.

As for the claim of abusive language, Mr Malins says: 'I reject that suggestion absolutely. On the contrary, the advice which I gave him was sincere, well meant, and, I believe, very good.'

At first glance, the thing is just ridiculous. You think that at some point you will wake up in the midst of this nonsense, and grown-ups will return, from wherever they have been hiding, to restore the country to sanity. But they don't. The one thing you can be sure of in this country now is that the state, where it possibly can be, will be against common sense.

But it is deeper than that. We now have a state which, when asked to choose between a learned judge and a frequently convicted criminal, sides with the criminal as if they are on an equal footing. There is no moral force and bite in our cardboard criminal justice system.

It sees its job as to negotiate, neutrally, between 'society' and 'offenders' whose misdeeds are not really their fault, but are explained by poverty, abuse or some other fashionable misfortune. And it reserves special spite for anyone who tries to behave as if things were still as they used to be. The householder who defends himself against a burglar is more severely investigated than most burglaries. This is because his action threatens the monopoly of soft justice.

You are alone. If dangerous evil comes your way, do not expect our current establishment to take your side and defend you. If you dare to defend yourself, it will quite possibly be you who ends up in the dock.

As for the 'Conservative' Party, can someone remind me, what is it for?