Category Archives: courts

The CCTV state

Every Briton has his Boswell

Every Briton has his Boswell

There is no evidence, writes Dalrymple, that continual surveillance deters or reduces crime.

Why should it, when the convicted have so little to fear from the courts?

The surveillance, he points out,

is intended not to protect or deter, but to intimidate.

How to be an expert witness

A brilliant cross-examination is a thing of beauty

A brilliant cross-examination is a thing of beauty

Dalrymple has seen

some pretty bad expert evidence given in court, often by the most eminent men in their field.

It can be embarrassing to see their destruction in the witness box,

though a brilliant cross-examination is a thing of beauty (provided that one isn’t at the receiving end of it).

Luckily,

one recovers one’s self-esteem quickly after a mauling in which one’s evidence has been torn to shreds. When it comes to amour propre, the immune system works wonders. The counsel for the other side is a paid hack who will use any sophistry to gain his point and throw dust in the eyes of judge and jury. He has the advantage of any interrogator over any person interrogated: he has no interest at all in The Truth — unlike oneself, of course.

If Dalrymple were seeking experts, he would not choose the most eminent men in their field, for two reasons:

  1. Being so eminent, they have often grown unused to having their opinion challenged. They suffer from what a student friend of mine, now an eminent professor himself, called a hardening of the concepts. In the witness box, they can become inflexible. I have found that the best tactic when opposing counsel makes a good point is to admit it at once. This, more often than not, deflates him, as he was hoping for a foolish obduracy on the part of the witness. He will then be denied the opportunity of a thespian display of quivering indignation.
  2. They are often very busy. They have a paper to deliver in Prague next week, followed by a departmental meeting, while the deadline for a chapter of a book approaches. They are on duty for the hospital the day after tomorrow. They have only limited time to devote to the 2,000 pages of documents in the case. They read them as an eagle glides over a mountain range; but the devil is in the detail. Mastery of the papers is what makes a good, or at any rate a convincing, witness — assuming, of course, a basic competence in the matter at issue.

What is needed, says Dalrymple, is

a jobbing but competent plodder who does not consider himself too important to read 2,000 largely irrelevant pages, if only because he fears being decimated in the box. Caution, fear and a certain degree of fight (but not too much) are what make a good witness in the game of law.

Dalrymple was once having

a torrid time in the box (over a point of no importance, but counsel knew that the jury wouldn’t realise that; he was merely trying to discredit me in advance, and doing quite a good job of it).

But Dalrymple changed the atmosphere

by a mild witticism that made even the judge laugh. I think it was a turning point in the trial: counsel never fully recovered the initiative.

All the same,

one must never try to be Oscar Wilde in the box: humour is to be employed in small doses and at precisely the right time.

‘Dogmatism’ is enough to get you struck off

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 20.52.36

Waney Squier is a consultant neuropathologist to the Radcliffe hospitals and honorary clinical lecturer at Oxford university. She has been a consultant neuropathologist since 1984, having trained at the Institute of Psychiatry and Great Ormond Street Hospital for sick children. Dr Squier is a member of the British Neuropathological Society and of the British Paediatric Neurology Association, and a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and of the Royal College of Pathologists

Maoist England

British doctors, writes Dalrymple,

live in fear.

They

  • fear that their patients might sue them
  • fear to say what they think to their managers
  • fear that they might fall foul of the Crown Prosecution Service if one of their patients dies unexpectedly
  • fear to protest when they are subjected to absurd and meaningless bureaucratic procedures
  • fear the General Medical Council

The General Medical Council’s striking off the medical register of Waney Squier, the neuropathologist who gave evidence in trials concerning babies allegedly shaken to death by their parents,

will have sent shivers down the spine of many a medical expert witness in Britain. Among Dr Squier’s faults, apparently, were dogmatism and failure to give due weight to the opinion of her colleagues. Where are we, one feels like asking? The Soviet Union? Maoist China?

In the witness box, Dalrymple is

firm, not rigid or dogmatic. It is my colleagues who appear for the other side who are rigid or dogmatic. Not that we experts take sides, of course: we are merely assisting the court. We give scientific evidence; we do not make a case.

Dalrymple points out that

if medical experts are to be struck off because their evidence is deemed deficient in some way, there will soon be a deficiency of experts.

It is the duty of the courts

to sift the evidential wheat from the chaff, and in my experience they do it rather well — considering the imperfectability of man.

When you get out, I’m fucking coming to fucking get you, you cunt

Screen Shot 2015-09-11 at 09.02.47So said a man,

whose physiognomy and deportment proclaimed him a member of the criminal classes,

sitting next to Dalrymple in court. The man made the threat — perfectly audible to the people in the court — to the accused who was entering the dock (protected by bulletproof glass).

He repeated the threat several times, and stared menacingly at the accused. The accused, who was mentally subnormal, turned away in fright.

Although it was not necessary, since everyone had heard what the man next to him had said, Dalrymple drew the attention of court officials to his threatening activities.

The officials did nothing, apart from the court clerk telling the man to desist, which he did—but only when, a little later, the judge entered. I subsequently became the object of his menacing regard.

That he had committed a crime

in the very heart of the criminal justice system, in front of many credible witnesses who could testify against him, and that no punishment followed, emblematised the paralysis into which not just the criminal justice system but the entire public administration of Britain has fallen. Outside the courtroom door, police patrolled with submachine guns directed at a notional threat; inside, a man committed a common crime with impunity. It was almost as if the policemen were protecting him rather than the law-abiding public.

It is easy to imagine, writes Dalrymple, the emboldening effect of the man’s court experience.

What fear need he have of a system too feeble even to demand obedience within its supposedly hallowed portals? I, on the other hand, had to look around as I left the court, in case he should be loitering with intent. Only the peaceful and law-abiding fear the law in Britain today.

Grievous discrimination in our courts

They have formed a cabal to keep the unintelligent in their place, deny them their rights, and discriminate against them

They have formed a cabal to keep the unintelligent in their place, deny them their rights, and discriminate against them

Despite all that has been achieved since the 1960s by wise and enlightened progressives to create the happy and just society that we inhabit today, large inequalities persist.

Instance No. 46: the legal profession

There is a deep problem with our barristers and judges. Dalrymple points out that the following groups are scandalously under-represented on the bench:

  • the innumerate
  • the subnormal
  • infants
  • members of the housebreaking community
  • the only averagely intelligent
  • the semi-literate
  • the schizophrenic
  • members of the drug-dealing community
  • the illiterate
  • the deaf
  • the unintelligent
  • members of the dangerous-driving community
  • the demented