Joshua, this blog came at an opportune time for me. Having been confronted by seriously corrupt behaviour from my local borough council officials and my local County Court (the former over a period of about 5 years, the latter 6 months) I’m about to publish an exposé. In my complaints to the above bodies so far, however, I have avoided using the word ‘corruption’ – I feel it covers too wide a range of behaviours, I’ve tended to prefer the more precise ‘lack of integrity’ and ‘probity’. I was therefore delighted to read about the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to establishing “a new independent ethics and integrity commission, with its own independent chair, to ensure probity in government”.
Perhaps I could write to this commission.
I also thought I’d purchaser Colin Nicholl’s book but then… hang on, it’s £320. I’ll rely on your excellent summary, Joshua.
Can I just add to Malcolm Fowler's comment about the Post Office scandal. Let's not forget the contribution of judges to the plight of wrongly convicted SPMs. The former Father of the House of Commons, Sir Peter Bottomley, said 'how was it that none of those judges asked the prosecutors "where were the fruits of the SPMs' embezzlement? The country houses, posh cars, huge bank accounts?" I've come across 3 judges - 2 of them senior, highly respected judges - and my thoughts about them are unprintable. I seem to remember Joshua's article in 'Legal Cheek' about a judge who's now come to represent a certain type of untrustworthy judge: a 'Smithers' - he jumped before he was pushed and retained his pension.
Sir Peter Smith was not untrustworthy. I did not accuse him of dishonesty and I am sure, Dudley, you did not mean to suggest anything of the sort. The allegation against him — never proved because, as you say, he resigned — was that he had demonstrated poor judgement.
I'm sorry, Joshua, I stand corrected. Foolishly I was relying on memory. I'm 84, and the article was quite a few years ago. My apologies also to to Sir Peter Smith.
Increasingly, in my perception bean counters of the world have united to the detriment of all. Oscar Wilde has his characters speaking of “ the price [or cost] of everything and the value of nothing” [“Lady Windermere’s fan” and “The importance of being Ernest “ respectively]. Now, what am I burbling on about-this time? On earlier anecdotal evidence but now with the Post Office scandal inquiry, I fear we are hearing and reading of more than a prima facie case against quite a number of lawyers involved for profit in this sorry affair, quite apart from lay persons similarly exposed to critical analysis and as Lord Phillips remarks the scenario seems very much prevalent in other prominent and disturbing cases. As to corruption, nothing new under the sun might well be the riposte but these days the machinery for teasing out instances of it is available and has led us- sometimes with a painful slowness- to be aware of where we are at now. However long and disappointing the delay over heeding the Law Commission’s recommendations, this MUST end. The inclination of so many over so long has been to sneer disparagingly at other -supposedly “less ethical and organised” - nations; how very complacent, arrogant and wrong that always was. Corruption at the highest level; cronyism on stilts; secrecy over dubious exchanges of favours? Whatever many of us might have preferred unquestioningly to assume, was ANY of that really ever justified? Now in any event it is the peoples of those formerly maligned countries who -for the present- have what we must hope is FAR from being the last laugh.
I must try and get a copy of this book. The previous editions have been excellent.
Official statistics has shown a significant increase in prosecutions for misconduct in public office (86 in 2015 rising to 135 in 2022) but the conviction rate has dropped (84/86 convicted in 2015 (although that was probably exceptional) yet only 46/135 in 2022). Part of the problem is undoubtedly that the Law Commission several years ago produced an excellent report that suggested reforms of the offence, including a specific offence of corruption, but sadly the government did not act on it. The common law offence has many quirks and a modern offence is sorely needed.
He prosecuted the Playlands 2 case after a cock-up saw the defendants convictions overturned on appeal. Clients went down & stayed down this time. Scrupulously fair (as was judge - Pigot). Sorry to hear about his brother’s passing.
Thanks Julien. I remember Playlands 2 well. It took most of my first two years in silk. Lots of trials that succeeded instead of one large one that failed. And thank you for remembering my twin.
I left the law after that case but remember the trial as one where our criminal justice system was functioning at it’s very best. It’s lovely to touch base after 50yrs… best wishes.
Joshua, this blog came at an opportune time for me. Having been confronted by seriously corrupt behaviour from my local borough council officials and my local County Court (the former over a period of about 5 years, the latter 6 months) I’m about to publish an exposé. In my complaints to the above bodies so far, however, I have avoided using the word ‘corruption’ – I feel it covers too wide a range of behaviours, I’ve tended to prefer the more precise ‘lack of integrity’ and ‘probity’. I was therefore delighted to read about the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to establishing “a new independent ethics and integrity commission, with its own independent chair, to ensure probity in government”.
Perhaps I could write to this commission.
I also thought I’d purchaser Colin Nicholl’s book but then… hang on, it’s £320. I’ll rely on your excellent summary, Joshua.
Can I just add to Malcolm Fowler's comment about the Post Office scandal. Let's not forget the contribution of judges to the plight of wrongly convicted SPMs. The former Father of the House of Commons, Sir Peter Bottomley, said 'how was it that none of those judges asked the prosecutors "where were the fruits of the SPMs' embezzlement? The country houses, posh cars, huge bank accounts?" I've come across 3 judges - 2 of them senior, highly respected judges - and my thoughts about them are unprintable. I seem to remember Joshua's article in 'Legal Cheek' about a judge who's now come to represent a certain type of untrustworthy judge: a 'Smithers' - he jumped before he was pushed and retained his pension.
Sir Peter Smith was not untrustworthy. I did not accuse him of dishonesty and I am sure, Dudley, you did not mean to suggest anything of the sort. The allegation against him — never proved because, as you say, he resigned — was that he had demonstrated poor judgement.
I'm sorry, Joshua, I stand corrected. Foolishly I was relying on memory. I'm 84, and the article was quite a few years ago. My apologies also to to Sir Peter Smith.
Increasingly, in my perception bean counters of the world have united to the detriment of all. Oscar Wilde has his characters speaking of “ the price [or cost] of everything and the value of nothing” [“Lady Windermere’s fan” and “The importance of being Ernest “ respectively]. Now, what am I burbling on about-this time? On earlier anecdotal evidence but now with the Post Office scandal inquiry, I fear we are hearing and reading of more than a prima facie case against quite a number of lawyers involved for profit in this sorry affair, quite apart from lay persons similarly exposed to critical analysis and as Lord Phillips remarks the scenario seems very much prevalent in other prominent and disturbing cases. As to corruption, nothing new under the sun might well be the riposte but these days the machinery for teasing out instances of it is available and has led us- sometimes with a painful slowness- to be aware of where we are at now. However long and disappointing the delay over heeding the Law Commission’s recommendations, this MUST end. The inclination of so many over so long has been to sneer disparagingly at other -supposedly “less ethical and organised” - nations; how very complacent, arrogant and wrong that always was. Corruption at the highest level; cronyism on stilts; secrecy over dubious exchanges of favours? Whatever many of us might have preferred unquestioningly to assume, was ANY of that really ever justified? Now in any event it is the peoples of those formerly maligned countries who -for the present- have what we must hope is FAR from being the last laugh.
I must try and get a copy of this book. The previous editions have been excellent.
Official statistics has shown a significant increase in prosecutions for misconduct in public office (86 in 2015 rising to 135 in 2022) but the conviction rate has dropped (84/86 convicted in 2015 (although that was probably exceptional) yet only 46/135 in 2022). Part of the problem is undoubtedly that the Law Commission several years ago produced an excellent report that suggested reforms of the offence, including a specific offence of corruption, but sadly the government did not act on it. The common law offence has many quirks and a modern offence is sorely needed.
He prosecuted the Playlands 2 case after a cock-up saw the defendants convictions overturned on appeal. Clients went down & stayed down this time. Scrupulously fair (as was judge - Pigot). Sorry to hear about his brother’s passing.
Thanks Julien. I remember Playlands 2 well. It took most of my first two years in silk. Lots of trials that succeeded instead of one large one that failed. And thank you for remembering my twin.
I left the law after that case but remember the trial as one where our criminal justice system was functioning at it’s very best. It’s lovely to touch base after 50yrs… best wishes.
*40 yrs