Are Judges Up to It?

Judges are not very highly regarded by the general public for most of the time and, for the most part, it's their fault. Often, they seem to be operating from another planet and few of them escape the charge of arrogance. The primary duty of judges is to uphold the law and, also, to see that anyone going through the courts gets a fair trial. Anyone charged with a criminal offence will, one way or another, get a defence team - even if the quality of that defence will depend on individual wealth. When it comes to civil matters, treatment by the courts depends entirely on wealth. No matter how strongly anyone feels that they have been wronged, the reality is that law is so impossibly expensive that no ordinary - or even mildly wealthy - person can seriously contemplate legal action through the courts. But this last week has been a particularly bad one for judges.

First there has been the farce of the super-injunctions imposed by various judges to protect the seedy activities of a string of show-biz and football personalities. Put simply, these over-rich, arrogant and somewhat pathetic characters have handed over buckets of money to lawyers in order to obtain super-injunctions that bar everyone from knowing anything about their nefarious activities and even bar us from knowing that either they or their injunctions exist. These men - and, so far, it seems that they are all men - have cheated on their wives and families - in some cases repeatedly - and although these people have lives and fortunes that depend on the publicity surrounding them, they wish to pick and choose what we will be allowed to know so that their shadier antics remain hidden. Of course, in these days of twitter, facebook and the like, secrecy has no future. These super-injunctions have been disintegrating like so much confetti, while ludicrous high court judges have been paddling away trying, Canute like, to stem the tide. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the whole business is crackers and is trying to decide what to do about it. It is providing us all with much amusement, of course, but I do have a great deal of sympathy with those persons who were at the top of the lists of people that these super-injunctions were intended to keep un-informed; ie the wives and families of this bunch of miscreants. They are now looking naive, sad and humiliated while trying to come to terms with the truth = even though they may have suspected much beforehand. Surely, one of the worst cases has been that of Chris Hutcheson, the father-in-law of swearing and abusive cook Gordon Ramsey, who has, apparently, another family, completely separate from that into which the said cook has married - plus a selection of added misteresses. We now find out that Gordon Ramsey had known about this for some time, yet didn't think it necessary to tell his own wife that her father was a bigamist - or was he? Did he marry any of the women with whom he had children? I detest the swearing cook who seems to think that not even a spud can be peeled without swearing at the f***ing thing but now he has sunk even lower in my estimation.

While we were still laughing at the judges denying that Ryan Giggs had ever had an injunction granted or that he even existed and that, in any case, the injunction was still in force, they started waffling and spluttering about gagging Parliament. The last time anyone tried that was James II, I think, in 1686. Then, Friday brought the news that the judges had taken leave of their senses yet again as the Court of Appeal concluded that the notorious Sharon Shoesmith, the former director of children's services at Haringey, was unfairly sacked from her job on the instruction of the then Children's Secretary, Ed Balls. This incident followed the death of 18 month old Baby P, Peter Connelly, who had been neglected, abused and, ultimately, killed by his mother and her partner. The social services department had been monitoring the conditions surrounding the child and he had been seen 60 times by a string of social workers, medics and policemen without anyone actually doing anything to stop the abuse. Sharon Shoesmith was in charge and was paid the staggering sum of £133,000 per year for her expertise and alleged abilities - only £10,000 per year less than the prime minister - and yet the failures for this child were catastrophic. Now, Ms Shoesmith - who does not do blame, she tells us - will be entitled to claim compensation of £500,000+ for wrongful dismissal. She says that she accepts the responsibility for the failings of her department but not the blame. I remember the time when President Richard Nixon was taking the same approach to the much less serious matter of the Watergate affair. But he didn't survive that nonsense and so should not Ms Shoesmith. It is clear that Baby P can claim no compensation. We understand that both Haringey Council - who presumably would have to foot the bill for any compensation payments - and the government intend to appeal - and so they should. When this goes back to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, I hope their lordships will provide some guidance as to the circumstances in which a responsible person has to accept the blame.

/