Saturday, 14 July 2001
It is always a pleasure to receive interesting e-mail, and the following e-mail was one I received from a young person, Carol Lewis who has an ambition to become a criminal lawyer.
Carol asked me to expound on my Viewpoint *What Is The Feminine For Ass, and I have accepted her invitation. I hope she will not take offence at my sharing her letter, and my reply, with you.
Carol has taken me to task for my views contained in What Is The Feminine For Ass, and this young woman, like any other, is quite correct to do this if they have cause to believe I have a mistaken view.
Attached is my reply. I hope it satisfies Carol. I wish her well in her chosen career, and sincerely hope she realises her ambitions.
I propose to extend her invitation to further my views by giving the following advice arrived at after years of experience.
The legal profession is becoming overcrowded, particularly criminal law, but there will always be room for someone who is skilful and right-minded. It is an interesting career, and nowadays, highly paid - if you are good.
After a lifetime of dealing with criminal lawyers on both sides of the fence, defence and prosecution, the advice I give, which is based on my experience, to any would-be lawyer is to be honest and loyal to your client.
Don't compromise your ethics and try to please everyone in court, including the Judge and the opposing lawyer. Have the courage of your convictions, and always do that which you think is right.
If you choose to specialise as a defence lawyer then establish a reliable reputation that you will always act in the best interest of your client, it will stand you in good stead.
If there are certain aspects of a case that means that you would not be able to give your all, or when you meet your client you feel uneasy acting for him/her, then return the brief.
Don't take the money and merely go through the motion of defending, that is extremely dishonest, and very unfair.
Always, with courtesy and respect, display courage when dealing with opposing senior barristers and, even Judges.
A timid lawyer is at a serious disadvantage in a courtroom, and 'nice guys' who are willing to let-down their client rather then place at risk their 'good ol' boy' reputation in court not only come second, they lose briefs and respect.
This is the e-mail I received from Carol
Dear Mad Frankie,
I have just read your article on your web site about the jail sentence for the boxer Charlie Rumbol. I don't know if you have any other messages about this but I think your view point is very mistaken, although I accept you have the right to state it, and that you are without the full facts of the case.
My main reason for emailing you is that you seem to be mistaken about how the decision for finding Charlie was made. You criticise the Judge, Anne Goddard, for finding him guilty. In fact it was a jury, who had the full evidence of family members (Charlie's), ex-girlfriends, medical experts and passers by, who all witnessed the incident. Added to that there were grave inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the family.
I don't know what the reasons were for the jury making the 'guilty' verdict as I was obviously not privy to their conversation, but having seen some of the evidence as an interested party (I am interested in becoming a criminal lawyer) I can understand in part the decision that was reached.
As a boxer, Charlie did know the power that his punch could hold, particularly where it was placed, and I can understand the judge's comments made in that light.
Law courts are I think never a conclusive indication of someone's guilt or otherwise, but as it is the only means of justice we have in this country at the moment, we have to abide by the judge's decision. That does not negate your right to criticise. And we have to remember that Charlie was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder. That is the end of my diatribe, however, I would be interested to hear your views on this matter, despite the fact that the incident and the court hearing was some time ago.
Yours in anticipation,
Here is my reply
Thank you for your e-mail.
Sorry Carol, but my Viewpoint on the Charlie Rumbol conviction for manslaughter does not state that Judge Goddard was responsible for the verdict, I was always fully aware that it was a jury trial
It certainly states that there was a serious lack of justice in her sentence because Judge Goddard was content to base her judgement that the seven years sentence was correct upon the fact the Charlie is a boxer, and therefore should be treated differently from any other.
This is manifestly wrong, and I took pains to explain in 'What Is The Feminine For Ass' that it is not possible for boxing coaching to make a non-puncher into a heavy puncher. Correct balance will only add to effectiveness. It is ludicrous to suggest that the fist of a boxer is a human laser accurate missile. If this were true then a boxing contest would be over immediately one boxer connects correctly with a punch.
A Flawed Judgment
The article goes on to give further explanation why the assessment of Judge Goddard was seriously flawed.
Charlie Rumbol threw one punch, and a young man died. Very sadly, for the families involved, this was one of those dreadful quirks of fate that devastate lives.
Boxers are taught to throw combination punches because quite obviously more than one punch is more effective.Charlie Rumbol threw one punch. By doing this he completely overlook the advice of his boxing coach. By ignoring his natural instincts as a boxer, when he threw that one punch he was not behaving like an effective boxer, and there may be no doubt that he was restricting any damage that he intended to cause the very unfortunate young man against whom the blow was aimed.
If only because Charlie Rumbol did not behave like a boxer when he threw that one punch how is it possible for the Judge to rightly form the view that he should be excessively punished because he was a boxer?
The Judge was wrong.
When physical assaults occur in an overwhelming number of cases anger is the cause of the assault. A boxer, like any other, may lose his temper, however it is a fact that one of the early lessons for a boxer is to never lose his/her temper when boxing.
The reason behind this teaching is that an angry boxer is likely to forget the discipline of self-defence, and carry out a wild assault. Loss of temper usually means a loss of clear thinking. Therefore any special training he may have had is wasted.
I was not witness to the altercation that took place between the young men, but I would not be surprised if there was a momentary loss of temper by Charlie Rumbol.
Surely no one in their right mind believes that when Charlie Rumbol threw that one punch he intended to kill. If it was his intention to cause grievous harm would he not have used a more lethal weapon than his fist?
Because of this terrible act of fate one family lost a son; another family saw the life planned by their son ruined, and distressing grief is visited upon both families.
In no way do I wish to intrude upon the distress of the family that lost their son over this incident, but how will the dreadful anguish of the Rumbol family help to relieve their tragic sorrow?
In truth it will not.
When Ignorance Is Not Bliss
If the Judge is correct in her view of justice then how come Judge Goddard does not advocate even greater punishment for muggers that badly beat old people with multiple punches, and often use weapons? If she has tried such a scumbag(s) then it would be interesting to know the punishment she imposed.
Did Judge Ann Goddard have her mind made up on the outcome of the case, before the trial ended? Some people that followed the case closely believe this to be true.
My view is that Judge Goddard saw an opportunity to impose a punitive sentence when she was advised that Charlie Rumbol was a boxer. She embraced this good time.
Quite obviously Her Honour Judge Goddard knows little or nothing about boxing, and for her to base her judgement on the appropriate sentence on a premise knowledge of which she is ignorant, is appalling.
A Dreadful and Painful Experience
If it is true then it is well known that a Judge is able to have a heavy influence on a jury, and sway their thinking.
The fact that Judge Goddard was later assaulted in her own court implies that another defendant, rightly or wrongly, had cause to believe she was not acting totally impartial.
To assault a Judge is extremely rare, and a serious analysis should have been made on the reason why the defendant that assaulted Judge Goddard acted in the way he did.
There should also have been an in depth study of the past judgements of the Judge, her behaviour in court and the severity of her sentences when compared to the judgements made in other similar cases by senior Judges.
The forbearance that allows Judges to be above criticism and allowed to act as dictators, is against natural justice.
I have been a serious victim of totally biased Judges, and it is a dreadful experience that is soul destroying.
In my naiveté in the early days I found it difficult to rebel against the brainwashing propaganda that Judges were dispensers of justice, and woe betide anyone who tried to abuse justice.
The Good Judge
Some Judges can be evil, corrupt, arrogant, (I proved Justice Frederick Lawton to be a liar in open court), despicable, liars, envious and are as likely to break any of the Ten Commandments as often as any other person.
Fortunately, the majority do not possess these traits, and are worthy of their positions.
The Judge who presided over the Parkhurst mutiny riot, Mr. Justice Bean, was a good man. He wanted to be fair. He had a very good idea of the truth of the matter, and saw through many of the lies.
His comments that the force used by the prison officers was a long way from being reasonable was absolutely correct, yet it took a wise, and brave Judge, to publicly voice this fact.
He sentenced me to five years, but the term would have been very much longer had Judge Bean possessed the ruthlessness of a Judge like Frederick Lawton.
I have no personal experience of Mr. Justice Ognall, who refused to allow the police to entrap Colin Stagg into confessing to murdering the young woman on Wimbledon Common, and showed courage that deserves the highest respect when he rightly condemned the police for using totally unacceptable tactics based on sexual emotions.
The Stagg trial was very much a high profile case, and centred on a heinous crime. For anyone to be in court on a charge of murdering a young mother in front of her young child is worse than any act by an animal, and the public, quite rightly, demanded that the killer be punished.
Despite this extremely heavy pressure Judge Ognall would not allow flagrant abuse, and rounded on the police with force when they tried to stretch the boundary way beyond the limit.
This is courtroom behaviour that is easy for a Judge to do with hindsight, but very difficult to put into practice when by doing the right thing it could mean that a ferocious, vicious killer would be let loose on the streets.
Nevertheless, Judge Ognall refused to allow the magnitude of this burdensome cross to stop him from doing his duty.
It truly was justice in action.
The Right And Wrong Role Models
I may be wrong, but I do not believe that Judge Anne Goddard would have acted in a similar manner as her fellow Judges Bean and Ognall had similar situations been presented to her.
Regrettably Judge Anne Goddard is not, in my view, an ideal role model.
Carol would, I believe, do better studying the courtroom behaviour of Judges like Mr. Justice Bean and Mr Justice Ognall, and colleagues who share their persuasion..
Had I by chance stumbled upon the murderer in the act of killing the young mother in front of her child, then I would have been in court on another murder charge, and I make no apology for this.
PLEASE SEE VIEWPOINT: WHAT IS THE FEMININE FOR ASS? DECEMBER 31ST 2001 FOR FURTHER DETAILS.