Post by The TodalPost by Zapp BranniganPost by AlwaysAskingQuestionshttp://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/defence-barrister-calls-judges-trial-conduct-an-absolute-disgrace-542970.html
or http://tinyurl.com/7zh5hhy
Okay, it's Ireland not the UK but can a barrister actually get away with
comments like that during a trial?
In the UK it would potentially be treated as contempt.
I'm not sure that's true, but in the UK the barrister would be reported to
the Bar Council and would face disciplinary action. If he thinks the judge
has mishandled the case he should appeal. In fact, it's good news for his
client if there are good grounds for appealing an adverse verdict. The only
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/council-inns-court-disciplinary-tribunal-council-inns-court-rudy-narayan-barrister-lincoln039s-
The link doesn't seem to work reliably so I'll quote most of it (some might
find it funny, others might wonder whether Mr Narayan might have been ill):
On 28 July 1988 a disciplinary tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court
(chairman: the Honourable Mr Justice Owen) sat to hear and determine charges
of professional misconduct against Rudy Narayan.
Rodger Bell appeared on behalf of the professional conduct committee of the
Bar Council and Mr Narayan who was present throughout the hearing was
represented by Mr Khadri for most legal arguments and submissions.
Mr Narayan pleaded not guilty to five charges of which the following were
found proved:
Charge: professional misconduct.
Particulars: On 15 September 1986, at Birmingham Crown Court, while
appearing on behalf of William Leopold Barrett before His Honour Judge
Malcolm Potter, you failed to act with due courtesy to the court in that:
(a) you accused the judge of racial discrimination against you and of
discriminating against your client by saying:
(i) 'I wish to place on record that members of the Birmingham Bar known to
Your Honour have conducted two trials at once in this building known to Your
Honour, with the greatest of respect, and Your Honour is now seeking to act
against a black member of the Bar in a different way to which you would have
acted to a white member of the Bar and to a member of the Birmingham Bar
know to you and I have no hesitation in making that charge. If you want to
discriminate against me as against your white brothers .
(ii) 'In my respectful view, Your Honour is discriminating on grounds of
race and colour against me .
and
(iii) 'May I ask Your Honour respectfully why you seek to discriminate
against Mr Barrett, I use the word "discriminate" very deliberately, as oppo
sed to any other defendant?';
and (b) you refused to leave Judge Potter's court when he told you that you
were required in Judge Cole's court and asked you to go there.
Contrary to paras 6(a) and 133 of the code of conduct for the Bar of England
and Wales.
Charge: professional misconduct.
Particulars: Between 14 September 1986 and 15 September 1986, at the
Birmingham Crown Court, while appearing on behalf of Arnold Salmon before
His Honour Judge Cole, you failed to act with due courtesy to the Court in
that:
(a) on the afternoon of 15 September 1986, you failed to appear in Judge
Cole's court although released by His Honour Judge Malcolm Potter from his
court in order that you might attend Judge Cole's court;
(b) on 16 September 1986, you accused Judge Cole of taking part in a
vendetta and witch-hunt against you, and of racism and racial
discrimination;
(c) on 16 September 1986, you used Judge Cole's court as a forum for
allegations of a vendetta or witch-hunt against you and of racism and racial
discrimination at Birmingham Crown Court, and you refused to stop making the
allegations of racism and racial discrimination when asked by Judge Cole;
(d) on the morning of 17 September 1986, you refused to be quiet when asked
by Judge Cole and you persistently interrupted the judge and said:
(i) 'Don's speak to me like that';
(ii) 'Pleae don't try and order me about as if I'm a wild colonial boy'; and
(iii) 'I don't want there to be any court in England and Wales where black
lawyers can be told to shut up'; and
(e) on the afternoon of 17 September 1986, you refused to answer questions
from Judge Cole relating to your late return to court, you refused to stop
talking when asked and you said to Judge Cole:
(i) 'You want to treat me like dirt? I will no be treated like dirt. I am a
human being, and I am sorry, I have never heard of an interrogation of a
white barrister in the way you seek to treat me. I am very sorry, I will not
allow you to humiliate me in this way';
(ii) 'You are trying to humiliate me and I am not going to tolerate it';
(iii) 'You are here to try and humiliate Rudy Narayan as part of a
conspiracy in Birmingham and with the greatest of respect the judiciary of
Birmingham the judiciary of Birmingham are doing their very best to try and
reduce Rudy Narayan to nothing';
(iv) 'I will not stop talking. I am here to defend my black brothers and
sisters. If you want to humiliate me, please try, but you will not succeed';
(v) 'I know what you are trying to do. You are trying to provoke me, so that
you can make a complaint. It is transparently clear. You will not succeed in
provoking me'; and
(vi) 'You can't tell me to be quiet, I am not a black boy.'
Contrary to paras 6(a) and 133 of the code of conduct for the Bar of England
and Wales.
The tribunal having taken into account the matters raised by way of
mitigation and having considered the decision of past tribunals upon Mr
Narayan's conduct ordered that Mr Narayan be suspended for 30 months.
Mr Narayan appealed to the visitors against findings and sentence of the
disciplinary tribunal on 24 February 1989.
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the sentences of 18 months in
respect of two of the charges were to stand but that the periods of
suspension for the two further charges be reduced to a period of six months
in respect of each charge, such periods to run concurrently with each other
and the visitors directed that the total period of two years' suspension
should be treated as running from the dat e six months before the decision
of the tribunal was confirmed, and put into effect by Mr Narayan's Inn of
Court so that he will in effect have a period of suspension of 18 months
from that time.
Masters of the Bench of Lincoln's Inn meeting at the Council on Thursday 27
April 1989 pronounced that Mr Narayan should be suspended from practice for
a period of two years with six months of the suspension running prior to the
pronouncement of that sentence.