Our Corrupt Legal System - Evan Whitton
Our Corrupt Legal System - Evan Whitton
i
Other books by Evan Whitton
Evan Whitton
iii
For dearest Noela, without whom not a word of
any of my books would have been written.
ISBN: 978-1-921681-07-3
iv
Contents
Significant events ............................................................... 2
Abbreviations...................................................................... 5
Foreword ............................................................................. 6
Preface ................................................................................ 12
v
C. What Common Lawyers Do ..................................... 84
1. Down the ages .............................................................. 84
2. Serial lying ..................................................................... 86
3. Ethics .............................................................................. 88
4. The cartel: law as business .......................................... 98
5. A feeding frenzy of lawyers ..................................... 100
6. The law as game ......................................................... 102
7. Zealous prosecutors ................................................... 103
8. The judge as Humpty Dumpty ................................ 105
9. A country’s values ..................................................... 115
vi
10. Delay .................................................................... 173
vii
N. The remedy.......................................................... 254
1. German and French civil procedure .................. 256
2. Criminal procedure in France ............................. 260
3. The two systems compared ................................. 263
4. How to get justice ................................................. 267
Definitions................................................................ 272
Acknowledgments................................................... 276
Bibliography............................................................. 277
viii
Significant Events
Significant events
2
Our Corrupt Legal System
3
Significant Events
4
Our Corrupt Legal System
Abbreviations
5
Foreword
Foreword
6
Our Corrupt Legal System
7
Foreword
8
Our Corrupt Legal System
9
Foreword
10
Our Corrupt Legal System
11
Preface
Preface
12
Our Corrupt Legal System
Investigative Adversary
system system
Seeks truth Yes No
Conceals evidence No Yes
In charge of Judges Lawyers
evidence
Length of civil About a day Months,
hearings years
Conviction rates 95% Under 50%
Innocent in prison Rare 1% - 5%
13
Preface
14
Our Corrupt Legal System
15
Preface
16
Our Corrupt Legal System
17
Preface
18
Our Corrupt Legal System
A. What is justice?
19
What is justice?
20
Our Corrupt Legal System
21
What is justice?
22
Our Corrupt Legal System
23
Origins of the two systems 24
24
Our Corrupt Legal System 25
dancing. He reminded film critic Joel Siegel (1943-
2007), of an old joke: ‘It's only the 99% of lawyers
who give the rest a bad name.’ The bad name
actually comes largely from the 40% who are trial
lawyers. The other 60% may be really nice persons
who would never tell a lie or pervert justice. One of
the really nice lawyers, Chaz Wannon, gave me
some lawyer jokes. One was: How do you save a
lawyer from drowning? Chaz said: ‘Shoot him
before he hits the water.’ In this book, ‘lawyers’
generally refers to certain trial lawyers.
A truth-seeking system thus keeps lawyers on a
tight leash. Roman law sought the truth – however
shakily – and judges controlled the process, but the
Columbia Encyclopaedia (Fifth Edition, 1993) says it
was ‘confused, contradictory or redundant’. Roman
law was not codified.
The West Roman Empire collapsed in 476 when
Odoacer’s Goths deposed the last Emperor,
Romulus Augustulus. Roman law disappeared in
West Europe for more than seven centuries (and in
England forever) but continued in the East Roman
(Byzantine) Empire.
A Byzantine emperor, Justinian (482-565,
Emperor 527-65), instructed Tribonian and other
lawyers to codify Roman law. They completed the
Corpus Juris Civilis (the law of the people) in 535. It
remained in use in the Byzantine Empire until
superseded by Islamic (Sharia) law after
Constantinople (formerly Byzantium) fell to the
Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in 1453.
25
Origins of the two systems 26
Western Europe and England meanwhile
regressed to mumbo jumbo during the Dark Ages
(c.476-750) and until relatively late in the Middle
Ages (c.750-1453). The Judicium Dei (Judgment of
God) was an accusatorial (prove it) system: A
accused B; B said: Prove it; an inscrutable deity gave
the verdict.
The form of trial varied. The most convenient
for accused was the wager (contract/oath) of law. For
example, a person accused of not paying a debt
could swear he had repaid it. When the deity did not
strike him down, he was clearly telling the truth. In
serious cases, he could produce character witnesses
(compurgators) prepared to swear his oath could be
trusted. The modern equivalent of the wager of law
is self-regulation. An accused cleric had to swallow
food containing a feather. If he choked on the
‘cursed morsel’, he was guilty.
The Judgment of God included such barbaric
ordeals as walking on hot ploughshares, carrying a
hot iron for nine feet, and taking a stone out of
boiling water. Three days later, an expert inspected
the damage and interpreted the deity’s verdict.
In ‘swimming a witch’ (trial by cold water), the
accused was trussed and thrown in a stretch of
water blest by a priest. If the water ‘received’ her, i.e.
she sank, she was not a witch. If the water ‘rejected’
her, i.e. she floated, she was a witch, and was fished
out and hanged or burned to death. Alleged witches
were swum and hanged in England as late as 1647,
and 20 were hanged in Salem, Massachusetts, in
1692.
26
Our Corrupt Legal System 27
The Church opposed trial by ordeal from the
time of Agobard, Bishop of Lyons (d. 840), on the
ground that it was naughty to tempt the deity, but
the spectacle was too exciting to be successfully
proscribed.
William the Conqueror, King of England 1066-
87), introduced trial by battle also known as the
wager of battle, trial by combat, and the judicial
duel. Accuser and accused swore they were telling
the truth and then fought a duel. The deity ensured
that the winner was the one in the right. The loser, if
still alive, was hanged.
Accused women and children were allowed to
hire a professional ‘champion’ to do the duelling. I
asked Sir John Mortimer QC in 2001 where the
adversary system came from. He said it began with
trial by battle. In fact, it began four centuries later.
Trial by ordeal nominally ended in England in
1219 but some aspects, e.g. swimming a witch,
persisted in isolated cases. In 1817, a judge thought
Trial by Battle was still available. He allowed
Abraham Thornton to get off a murder charge when
the accuser did not pick up a gauntlet thrown down
by Thornton. Parliament had to legislate to repair
the judge’s error.
27
Origins of the two systems 28
the British system and the master of Europe was a
quite upright churchman.
In Organized Crime and American Power: A
History (University of Toronto Press, 2001), British
historian Michael Woodiwiss defines organised
crime as ‘systematic criminal activity for money or
power’. He says the definition applies to the
powerful and respectable as well as the Mob. A
criminal enterprise is the vehicle through which
organised crimes are committed. For instance, the
Cook County court system was the vehicle through
which Chicago judges systematically extorted bribes
from accused late in the 20th century. Lawyers and
court officials were the judges’ bagmen.
Woodiwiss notes that in 1930 Raymond Moley
said Europe’s feudal system was ‘a good deal of a
[protection] racket’. Lords extorted goods and
services from peasants in return for ‘protection
against other plundering lords and vagabonds’.
Woodiwiss says ‘William of Normandy did most to
establish such a system in early Britain.’
Richard Condon said modern man thinks
money brings power. Medieval man knew power
brings money. William I (1027-87) and his son,
William II (c.1056-1100), had standard medieval
minds. After William I’s 6500 Norman mercenaries
defeated King Harold’s 7000 troops at Hastings in
1066, William franchised 90 per cent of the country
to 300 favourites, and established a property system
based on trickle-down extortion.
The 300 ‘magnates’ or ‘great men of the realm’
were part-time judges and full-time organised
28
Our Corrupt Legal System 29
criminals. They franchised land to freemen and
extorted goods and services from them; extorted
from merchants travelling through their land; and
‘sometimes led or employed bands of brigands to
plunder towns and villages’. The freemen in turn
franchised land to its original owners and extorted
from them.
The British Empire was a criminal enterprise
based on theft of land, and later of human beings.
The empire dates from 1072, when William I
compelled the Scottish King, Malcolm III, to do him
homage. It expanded to South Wales in 1079, to
Ireland in 1172, and to Virginia in 1607. Britain then
developed a triangular trade in goods and slaves
between Africa, America and England.
Britain was always as corrupt as any country in
Europe, if not more so, and incomparably the best at
what Harvard ethicist Arthur Applbaum calls a
‘strategy of redescription’. Bribes and/or extortions
were redescribed as gifts, presents, favours,
patronage, doucers, commissions, gratuities,
honoraria, unofficial taxes, kickbacks. The colonies
learned well: bribes are juice in California, ice in
Florida, grease in New York.
King (1087-1100) William II institutionalised
organised crime in the trade of authority. History
professor John Gillingham, of the London School of
Economics, noted in The Oxford History of Britain vol
II The Middle Ages (OUP 1992) that William II put
every public office, from Chancellor down, on sale,
and the buyer in turn extorted bribes from people
who had to deal with the office. The Chancellor was
29
Origins of the two systems 30
head of Chancery, the royal secretariat, and hence a
sort of mediaeval Prime Minister. The Chancery also
became a court late in the 14 th century, and some
Chancellors continued their corruption into the 20th
century.
The common law and the jury system are held
to date from the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, during
the reign of Henry II (1133-89, monarch 1154-89).
When a crime was reported, 12 neighbours were
asked to use local knowledge to suggest a suspect.
This offered the chance to blacken an enemy. The
trial was still by ordeal and a deity still gave the
verdict.
The common law is judge-made law as opposed
to statute law, and is common to the whole country.
Henry II began the practice of sending judges out to
make the whole country subject to common rather
than local law in 1166. In the culture of the time,
justices in eyre, i.e. travelling judges, were more
inclined to extort bribes than to deliver justice.
Cambridge law professor J. H. Baker (Sir John, as he
became in 2003) (b. 1944) wrote in An Introduction to
English Legal History (Third Edition Butterworth
1990):
30
Our Corrupt Legal System 31
2. The legal cartel begins
31
Origins of the two systems 32
despite noisy and incessant protestation and apologetics,
the history of all branches of the profession, including the
professoriat [from the late 18th century] and the judiciary,
to secure a lustrous place in the financial and social-status
sun.
32
Our Corrupt Legal System 33
in 1160 or 1161. He studied theology at the
University of Paris and jurisprudence – the
philosophical basis of law – at the University of
Bologna. Gregory VIII ordained him sub-deacon in
1187. Clement III made him a Cardinal in 1190.
Justice Ken Marks, of the Victorian Supreme
Court, wrote in ‘Thinking up’ about the right of silence
(1984) that Segni ‘devised inquisitional techniques
[to investigate alleged clerical misbehaviour] in a
series of decrees beginning in 1189-90’. Professor
Richard Jackson, of Cambridge, wrote in The
Machinery of Justice in England (seventh edition 1977):
33
Origins of the two systems 34
On 19 April 1213, Innocent issued a papal Bull
inviting spiritual and temporal princes to attend an
ecumenical council in Rome in November 1215.
34
Our Corrupt Legal System 35
To gain time, John signed the charter and then,
as a vassal of Innocent, appealed to Rome. The Pope
annulled the charter in August 1215 on the ground
that John had signed under duress and without the
Pontiff’s consent. The charter was thus in force for
nine weeks.
35
Origins of the two systems 36
Canon 18 banned ‘any blessing’ by clerics to
‘judicial tests or ordeals by hot or cold water or hot
iron’. That effectively ended trial by ordeal.
Temporal courts in Europe shortly adopted
Innocent’s version of Roman law. The investigative
system is now the most widespread system in the
world, but few common lawyers have heard of
Innocent or the Lateran Council. Innocent is not
mentioned in Professor Baker’s Introduction to
English Legal History, nor did he make the cut in US
law professor Darien McWhirter’s The Legal 100: A
Ranking of the Individuals Who Have Most Influenced
the Law (Citadel, 1998).
Erle Stanley Gardner (1889-1970), a lawyer-
novelist, was 99th in The Legal 100. His 80 Perry
Mason books and television productions based on
them give readers and viewers two quaint
impressions: 1. All accused are innocent. 2. The truth
of their innocence always emerges at trial.
Sir John Mortimer QC placed 100th. Despite his
view that there is a gulf between law and reality,
morality, and common sense, Rumpole gives the
impression that justice somehow happens at trial.
36
Our Corrupt Legal System 37
constantly being addressed by the same score or so
of practitioners, these two small groups cannot help
influencing each other.’
Europe had spoken, but English lawyers and
judges were making a lot of money from the
accusatorial system, and the role of lawyers in a
truth-seeking system would necessarily be minimal.
In 1219, the cartel accepted that trial by ordeal had to
go, but decided to reject the investigative system and
to persist with the accusatorial system, minus the
ordeal and with inscrutable jurors instead of the
inscrutable deity.
Professor Theodore Plucknett said a trial was
now ‘just a newer sort of ordeal ... the jury states a
simple verdict of guilty or not guilty and the court
accepts it, as unquestionably as it used to accept the
pronouncements of the hot iron or the cold water’.
Professor Richard Jackson said: ‘Jury trial
simply replaced trial by ordeal, the verdict of the
jury having the same finality and the same
inscrutability as the Judgment of God.’
Ethnocentrism is a ‘belief in the inherent
superiority of one’s own group and culture
accompanied by a feeling of contempt for other
groups and cultures’, e. g. ‘Wogs begin at Calais’.
Professor Richard Jackson said ‘an insular dislike of
things foreign’ was a cause of the rejection of the
truth-seeking system.
Nothing changes. An inquiry into the British
criminal system began in 1991 after it emerged that
police had used torture to procure false confessions.
In 1993, its report rejected a truth-seeking system
37
Origins of the two systems 38
because: ‘Every system is the product of a distinct
history and culture, and the more different the
history and culture from our own, the greater must
be the danger that an attempted transplant must
fail.’
An effect of the rejection of truth in 1219 is that
the common law can prefer legal fictions to truth,
form to substance, rights to justice, and appearance
to reality. The parol (oral) evidence rule of contracts
developed in the 13th century held that documentary
evidence takes precedence over oral evidence. For
instance, if a man paid a debt but did not make sure
the bond was cancelled, it was useless to bring
witnesses to prove he paid the debt: the bond was
held to be incontrovertible proof that the debt was
still owed. The parol evidence rule still obtains in
some common law jurisdictions.
38
Our Corrupt Legal System 39
Sir William Holdsworth (1877-1944) noted in A
History of English Law (the 1927 edition) that it was
not until 1827 that Parliament told judges to take a
refusal to plead as a plea of not guilty.
Judges apparently also used torture to obtain
confessions, just like the despised continentals. The
CDNB laconically notes that in 1628 Sir Thomas
Richardson (1569-1635), Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, ‘refused to allow [John] Felton to be
racked to induce confession, a step which marks an
epoch in the history of criminal jurisprudence’.
Felton (1595?-1628) assassinated the incompetent
and unpopular ‘favourite’ of James I, the Duke of
Buckingham (1592-1628), at Portsmouth in 1628.
Felton was ‘described as a national benefactor in
popular ballads’, but was hanged.
39
Origins of the two systems 40
torture.) David Gitlitz, professor of Spanish Studies
at the University of Rhode Island, says medieval
judges did not pretend water-boarding was not
torture. He wrote in The Providence Journal of 8
February 2008: ‘Since the middle of the 13th century
it [waterboarding] had been used by European civil
and ecclesiastical courts.’
There were no jurors in the investigative system
and it was recognised that judges’ power risked
oppression. An impossibly high standard of proof
was required: judges could convict only on the basis
of two eyewitnesses or a confession. That eliminated
circumstantial evidence; two eyewitnesses were rare;
and criminals might not dutifully confess.
Suspects were given some protection. Torture
could only be used where there was one reputable
eyewitness or compelling circumstantial evidence,
and it was permitted only to elicit facts, not a
confession. The judge was not to suggest the answer
he wanted.
In practice, the torture rules were as futile as
Anglo-American Bar Associations’ ethics rules.
Torture is notoriously unreliable: the tortured are
likely to confess to anything, e.g. the Birmingham
Six, who were tortured by British police in 1974.
Professor John Langbein, of Yale, noted in The
Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial (OUP 2004):
40
Our Corrupt Legal System 41
the eighteenth century the law of torture remained a
defining feature of the Continental tradition in criminal
procedure.
41
Origins of the two systems 42
Judges were accused of corruption, sorcery and
murder in 1289. The Chief Justice of Common Pleas
fled the country, and seven judges were dismissed.
They included Ralph de Hengham, Chief Justice of
the King’s Bench (criminal trials), but in 1301 he was
appointed Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
presumably by bribing Edward I.
Venality means open to bribery. A poem from
the early 1300s was titled Song on the Venality of the
Judges. Another, The Simonie, from about 1321, has a
poor man standing outside the court while a rich
man bearing ‘gifts’ is welcomed inside.
Lawyers took effective control of Parliament
about 1350. Professor Theodore Plucknett said: ‘…
the middle of the fourteenth century coincides with
Parliament’s first assertions of its powers … and the
dominant interest in it were the common lawyers …
bench, bar and Parliament, therefore, were alike
under the influence of the conservative
professionalised lawyer.’ Hence the view that for
more than 650 years democracy in the English-
speaking world has been defined as government of
the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers. The
Scandalum Magnatum was re-enacted in 1378 to stop
people muttering about judges, prelates, and certain
named officials, many no doubt as corrupt as the
great men of the realm.
Richard II made the royal secretariat, the
Chancery, a court in the 1380s. It purported to be a
court of equity (fairness) to provide a remedy for the
rigidities and injustices of the common law courts,
but the traditionally corrupt Chancellor was its
42
Our Corrupt Legal System 43
judge and jury; the Chancery Court inevitably
became as corrupt as the others. Professor J. H.
Baker says ‘already by 1393 there were complaints
of its abuse’.
The cartel’s executive was effectively the Order
of Serjeants-at-Law (Order of the Coif). Serjeants
were originally an order of ecclesiastic lawyers; the
coif, a piece of silk worn on the head, represented
the clerical tonsure. Professor Theodore Plucknett
said: ‘In the course of the 14th century the Serjeants
[became] a close guild in complete control of the
legal profession … By the close of the 14 th century
the judges are all members of the order of Serjeants,
and Serjeants alone can be heard in the principal
court, that of Common Pleas.’ (Civil cases.)
The Serjeants thus had a monopoly of work in
the civil courts, a monopoly of appointment as
judges, and a monopoly of legal education. Fewer
than 1000 Serjeants were appointed from about 1400
until their monopoly ended in 1846.
Today, some US law schools give bright
students an Order of the Coif. Perhaps they should
think about that. Professor John Baker says
‘ministers sold the coif for bribes’ in the 17th century,
but the opportunities for corruption clearly made it
worth buying in the 14th, although London’s
population was then only about 45,000. Professor
Theodore Plucknett says Serjeants’ wealth in the 14th
century ‘must have been enormous’. On
appointment, they were obliged to hold feasts
‘comparable to a king’s coronation, and to distribute
liveries and gold rings in profusion’.
43
Origins of the two systems 44
Professor Plucknett said that in the Middle
Ages Serjeants lived together during term time in
the Serjeants’ Inns, ‘and discussed their cases
informally together simply as Serjeants, without
distinction between those on the bench and those at
the bar’. They presumably also used the Inns to
divide up the extortions.
London Lickpenny (c.1400-1450) is a poem about
a poor ploughman from Kent. He seeks justice in
Westminster Hall but, lacking money, can find no
justice in the King’s Bench, the Common Pleas, or
the Chancery Court.
Jack Cade’s revolt in 1450 was partly caused by
dissatisfaction with the legal system. Cade briefly
controlled London, and according to Shakespeare’s
Henry VI Part II (1594), agreed with Dick the
Butcher’s final solution: ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers’,
but Cade was himself killed.
44
Our Corrupt Legal System 45
post-verdict review of trial outcomes, but they do not tell
us much about how civil trials actually transpired.
45
Origins of the two systems 46
Lawyers began to get control of evidence when they
started sending written pleadings to each other, thus
cutting the judge out of the first stage of the process.
Professor Holdsworth said the first record of a paper
(written) pleading was in 1460. Sir John Prisot
(d.1460), Chief Justice (1449-60) of the Common
Pleas suggested, perhaps with his dying breath, that
written pleadings would make it easier for lawyers
to lie. He said:
46
Our Corrupt Legal System 47
That supports the view that justice is broken in the
adversary system.
47
Origins of the two systems 48
From 1534, when King (1509-47) Henry VIII (1491-
1547) made himself head of the Church of England,
common lawyers claimed that judicial torture in
Europe confirmed the superiority of the British
system. Professor John Langbein said that from the
time of the Reformation:
48
Our Corrupt Legal System 49
canon law stated: ‘Although no one is compelled to
accuse himself, yet one accused by rumour is
compelled to present himself to show his innocence,
if he can, and to clear himself.’
Dyer omitted everything except ‘no one is
compelled to accuse himself’ (nemo tenetur seipsum
prodere), and used that to free an accused who
refused to speak. For two centuries, however, judges
ignored Dyer’s lie.
Samuel Pepys (1633-1703), a corrupt naval
bureaucrat, diarist, womaniser, and hypocrite, was
in the great British tradition of calling bribery
something else. Claire Tomalin reported (Samuel
Pepys, Viking, 2002) that in 1663, John Luellin, a cut-
out for a timber merchant, John Dering, offered
Pepys £200 a year (at least £20,000 today), and 50
gold pieces immediately if he took timber.
Tomalin wrote: ‘Pepys explained he was not to
be bribed, but was prepared to accept an
“acknowledgment” of his services’. He took £50 (c.
£5000) on the spot, and gave Luellin £2 (c. £200) ‘for
his trouble’.
In cases of disputed wills in the Chancery court,
lawyers were paid, not by clients, but from the
deceased estates. From at least 1650 to early in the
20th century, the court was a criminal enterprise
involving elements of the cartel. The sole Chancery
judge, the Chancellor, was a curiosity. Until 2003, he
was at once head of the judiciary and a politician,
with a seat in Cabinet. Professor John Baker wrote:
49
Origins of the two systems 50
For two centuries before Dickens wrote Bleak House [i.e.
from about 1650], the word ‘Chancery’ had become
synonymous with expense, delay and despair; throughout
the 17th and 18th centuries 10,000 to 20,000 cases were
pending, and the time taken to dispose of them could be
as long as 30 years … Two distinguished chancellors
[Bacon 1621, Macclesfield 1725] were dismissed for
accepting ‘presents’ … Gold or silver could open paths
through the Chancery morass.
50
Our Corrupt Legal System 51
cases in “advanced stages” in the national courts.
The boom was followed by a long “bust”, which
cannot be blamed on the English civil war, but on a
policy adopted by the leading litigation lawyers.
They would not meet the market any more. They
would focus on cases that could support higher fees,
and then find ways to extract those fees. Successful
lawyers still operate on that principle today.
‘By 1750 increased fees had dramatically
reduced the supply of willing civil litigants, and the
number of cases being actively pursued was a sixth
of the 1640 figure. However, the number of lawyers
had not gone down, and the total amount of
litigation activity being generated by that reduced
number of cases, and the amount of legal fees being
paid, had actually gone up. Seventy-five per cent of
the barristers of England, faced with declining work
in Kings Bench and Common Pleas, had turned to
the Chancery Court (which dealt with deceased
estates) and became litigational racketeers.
‘By 1800 the Court of Chancery was finalising
only 30-90 cases a year, but creating 5,000 to 7,000
“hearings” per year, in order to give lawyers some-
thing to do. Chancery judges were obviously in on
the racket, and all judges would have known about
it. Payment came from the assets of the deceased
estates.’
51
Origins of the two systems 52
have someone to speak for them, but they were on
their own for more than five centuries after the
common law began in 1166. The only people at a
criminal trial were the accused, his (private) accuser,
their witnesses, the judge, and the jurors.
It is said that lawyers were not allowed in the
criminal courts, but they had enough power to get
control of civil evidence; if they wanted to defend
criminals, judges would not have stopped them. The
reality is that criminal work was not a business
proposition. The Scandalum Magnatum protected
wealthy white collar organised criminals from being
accused, and ordinary criminals were not rich.
Jeremy Bentham said: ‘ … plunderable matter was
seldom to be found’ in the purses of accused.
Professor Stephan Landsman said: ‘Not even the
judges, who received sizable fees in civil litigation,
could hope to profit from the criminal docket.’
Trade in goods and slaves made England rich
and populous in the 17th century. London’s
population is estimated to have tripled, from 200,000
to 600,000, between 1600 and 1700. Unrespectable
organised crime followed; lawyers discovered a
tender care for the rights of accused. They began to
appear in criminal courts after a 1692 Act offered a
reward of £40 (c. £4000 today) for information
leading to the conviction of highway robbers and
other thieves. Trial lawyers easily exposed those
who made false accusations to get the £40, but they
did not appear in numbers until the end of the 18 th
century.
52
Our Corrupt Legal System 53
Research on Old Bailey trials by University of
Toronto law professor John M. Beattie showed that
lawyers appeared in 2.1% of trials in the 1770s,
20.2% in 1786, and 36.6% in 1795. Since 1790, judges
have agreed to a series of anti-truth devices which
make it relatively easy to get rich criminals off.
53
Origins of the two systems 54
continues to have a profound effect in the United
States, said citizens have certain natural rights,
including a sacred right to property, and that
governments which do not protect those rights can
legitimately be overthrown. Since no government
can protect every right, including the right not to be
lied to, Locke supplied a pretext for any usurpation,
at home or abroad.
The overthrow of the monarchy was called a
‘Glorious Revolution’, perhaps because organised
criminals among the Whig oligarchs who ran Britain
for much of the 18th century rightly anticipated
making glorious sums of money. In English Society in
the Eighteenth Century (Penguin, 1982), historian Roy
Porter noted some of their techniques:
54
Our Corrupt Legal System 55
Walpole in John Gay’s Beggars’ Opera (1728), Henry
Fielding’s The History of Jonathan Wild the Great
(1743), and The Threepenny Opera, by Kurt Weill and
Bertolt Brecht (1928).
Walpole (1676-1745), Prime Minister 1715-17
and 1720-42, said of politicians: ‘All these men have
their price.’ The Duke of Newcastle (Thomas
Pelham-Holles, 1693-1768), was the oligarchy’s
bagman from 1724-62. He was Prime Minister 1754-
56 and 1757-62. Most judges were former Whig
politicians. Justice James Thomas wrote:
55
Origins of the two systems 56
Anxious to be appointed, Mr Elde saw the Lord
Chancellor himself, who was even more delicate than Mr
Cottingham. Lord Macclesfield said he thought Mr Elde
would make a good officer, and asked Mr Elde to
consider of it. Mr Elde considered of it accordingly for
two days, and then returned to say that ‘if his Lordship
would admit him he would make him a present of £5000.’
To this Lord Macclesfield virtuously replied: ‘You and I
must not make bargains.’ A few days later Mr Elde met
Cottingham. Cottingham, when told of his offer of £5000
to Lord Macclesfield, significantly rejoined: 'Guineas are
handsomer.’ Determined to secure the office, Mr Elde
repaired to his chambers, found a clothes-basket, placed
in it 5000 guineas in cash and notes, handed it to Mr
Cottingham at the Lord Chancellor’s house, saw Mr
Cottingham carry it upstairs, was invited to dine by the
Lord Chancellor, and was sworn in after dinner. Some
months later his basket was returned to him but, added
Master Elde, with no money in it.
56
Our Corrupt Legal System 57
Judges were still extorting bribes from barristers
in return for legal office in 1810.
57
Origins of the two systems 58
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a child
prodigy who went to Oxford at 12, got a bachelor’s
degree at 15, a master’s at 18, and was called to the
Bar at 21. He heard Blackstone lecture and judged
him to be defective. He saw in Blackstone a ‘spirit of
obsequious quietism’ which ‘scarce ever let him
recognise a difference’ between what the law is and
what it should be.
Professor Plucknett kindly said Blackstone
lacked ‘excessive learning’; that he regarded ‘legal
history as an object of “temperate curiosity” rather
than exact scholarship’; that his ‘equipment in
jurisprudence was also somewhat slender’; and that
he was led ‘to tolerate’ the system by a ‘romantic
fancy’ which compared ‘it to a picturesque old
Gothic castle’.
Blackstone published his lectures as
Commentaries on the Laws of England in four volumes
from 1765 to 1769. Jeremy Bentham described the
work as ‘ignorance on stilts’, but fairy tales are
popular: sales of the book in Britain and America
made Blackstone’s fortune. He was made a judge in
1770.
Lawyers like to quote Blackstone’s assertion:
‘Under our system of justice, it is better that 10 guilty
men go free than that one innocent man be
convicted.’ That provided an excuse to help the new
breed of criminal defence lawyer with a series of get-
the-guilty-off devices. Thomas Starkie, a Cambridge
academic, improved on Blackstone in 1824. He said:
‘The maxim of the law … is that it is better that 99 …
offenders shall escape than that one innocent man be
58
Our Corrupt Legal System 59
condemned.’ The reality today is that in 100 cases up
to five innocent men are convicted and more than 50
guilty men escape justice. Truth-seeking systems are
much better at both.
Blackstone’s successors have generally adopted
a posture of ostrichism about the system’s history
and vices, but some ease their consciences by writing
papers critical of an aspect of the system (but not the
system as a whole or its basis), safe in the knowledge
that judges and trial lawyers will ignore the papers
and they will be unintelligible to the public. As St
Paul almost said, academics discussing justice are
but as sounding brass or tinkling cymbals.
59
Origins of the two systems 60
for the sufficient reason that lawyers did not admit it
is an adversary system until the mid-20th century.
Blackstone had repeated Justice Dyer’s 1568 lie
that no one is compelled to accuse himself, and
Madison entombed it in the Constitution as the Fifth
Amendment: ‘ … nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.’.
60
Our Corrupt Legal System 61
The Jennens matter lasted several lifetimes. William
Jennens, 97, an unmarried loan shark, was the
richest commoner in England, worth about £500
million of our money. He went to a solicitor to make
a will but forgot his spectacles, and the solicitor’s did
not fit. He died a few days later, on Tuesday, June
19, 1798, the unsigned will in his pocket.
In a rational system, a judge would determine
Jennens’ wishes by examining the solicitor and the
will, and dispose of the case in an hour. Not in a
system which insists that appearance trumps
reality. Jane Mulvagh writes in Madresfield: The Real
Brideshead (Black Swan 2009): ‘A will was found in
his [Jennens’] coat pocket, sealed but not signed and
therefore useless.’
Details of subsequent events are to a degree
obscure. Mulvagh says part of the estate was shortly
split between distant cousins in the Lygon (pron.
Liggon), Andover and Curzon families, and that the
Lygon share was ‘the equivalent in today’s terms of
forty million pounds’. If the Andovers and Curzons
got a similar amount, it would leave the equivalent
of some £380 million today to be picked over.
It seems that 32 successive Chancellors,
beginning with Lord Eldon (Chancellor 1801-06 and
1807-27) let Jennens run. Dickens was born in 1812. In
1852-53, he used Jennens as the model for Jarndyce v
Jarndyce in Bleak House, and it was still going when
he died in 1870. It was not until 1915 that the
Chancery vultures and/or water lawyers had totally
‘devoured’ the remainder of the estate, and Jennens v
Jennens ended.
61
Origins of the two systems 62
A few things may be noted by way of footnotes
to the Jennens saga. The Lygon share was the basis of
a renewed fortune. Madresfield, the family seat, in the
west midlands was extended and, in the time-
honoured cash for honours way, Lord Lygon’s wife,
Catherine, bribed George III with £10,000 (£10
million today) in 1815 to have her husband made
Earl Beauchamp.
William Lygon, seventh Earl Beauchamp (1872-
1938), was the Lord Lundy in one of Hilaire Belloc’s
Cautionary Tales for Children (1907):
62
Our Corrupt Legal System 63
Earl Beauchamp’s brother in law, the second
Duke of Westminster (1879-1953), was a serial
adulterer – one of his mistresses was the French
courtesan and couturier, Gabrielle (Coco) Chanel
(1883-1971) – and tax evader (see below, Larceny by
trick). In 1930, the Duke outed the Earl to King
George V. George said: ‘I thought men like that shot
themselves.’ The Earl went into exile. Hughie died
when he fell out of a car in Bavaria and hit his head
on the concrete.
In Waugh’s novel, Brideshead Revisited (1945),
Brideshead is based on Madresfield, Lord
Marchmain on Earl Beauchamp, and Lord Sebastian
Flyte on Hughie.
63
Origins of the two systems 64
was decided by another accident of history in
Piedmont, North Italy, on Saturday, 14 June, 1800.
The first Battle of Marengo was between a
French army under First Consul Napoleon
Bonaparte and an Austrian army under General
Michael von Melas. Bonaparte, wrongly believing
that Melas would retreat to Genoa, sent General
Louis Desaix to cut off his presumed retreat, but
Melas attacked at 9 am. Bonaparte sent a message to
Desaix: ‘For God’s sake, come back, if still you can.’
Archie Macdonell noted in Napoleon and His
Marshals (Macmillan 1934, Prion 1996) that one of
Bonaparte’s generals, Nicolas Soult, had been
wounded and captured in a skirmish outside Genoa
and was taken to an Austrian hospital at Alessandria
near Marengo. Macdonell wrote:
64
Our Corrupt Legal System 65
of that thundery summer’s day the first Austrian
wounded began to come in to Soult’s hospital with
their stories of victory all along the line, and at 4 pm
there was a terrible silence in the east.‘ Rumours
shortly reached Paris that Bonaparte was probably
dead and certainly finished.
But Desaix had arrived on the field at 3 pm
and breezily advised the First Consul: ‘This battle is
completely lost, but it is only two o’clock [sic]; there
is time to win another.’ Macdonell: ‘[General
Auguste Marmont, commanding the guns, had
fought furiously all day until he had only five pieces
left. Five more were brought up from reserve and
Desaix had eight.’
The so-called (at least by the present writer)
Battle of Chicken Marengo began at 5 pm with a 20-
minute bombardment by Marmont’s artillery.
Bonaparte’s greatest achievement, the reform of the
investigative system, turned on what happened in a
few minutes after 5.20 pm. Macdonell briskly
reported:
65
Origins of the two systems 66
Austrians were staggering under the blow and an
Austrian ammunition-wagon was exploding with a
monstrous detonation, Desaix went forward with a shout
[and was killed by a bullet to his head], and young
[Francois] Kellermann, son of old Valmy [Francois
Christophe] Kellermann, came thundering down on the
flank, through the mulberry trees and the tall luxuriant
vines, with a handful of heavy cavalry. A minute earlier,
or three minutes later, and the thing could not have
succeeded, but the timing was perfect, and North Italy
was recovered in that moment for the French Republic …
at eight o’clock … the Austrian surgeons came rushing to
their distinguished guest [Soult] with the news of the
utter rout of their men.
66
Our Corrupt Legal System 67
In August 1800, Bonaparte set up a committee
of four lawyers, of whom the most significant were
Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis, nearly blind, 54, and
François-Denis Tronchet, 73. They met in Tronchet’s
house, and had a draft printed by 1 January 1801.
Judges added their comments and the draft was
discussed clause-by-clause at more than 90 meetings
of the Council of State (Conseil d'Etat) between July
and December 1801.
Bonaparte read law books to prepare himself
and chaired more than half the meetings. A council
member, Antoine Thibaudeau, said Bonaparte ‘took
a very active part in the debates, beginning,
sustaining, directing, and reanimating them by
turns. General Marmont, 26, hero of Marengo,
attended a number of sessions. He said Napoleon
was:
67
Origins of the two systems 68
am … Tronchet, I admire your intelligence and the
strength of your memory. For a man of your age, it is
exceptional and deserves to be pointed out. Portalis, you
would be the greatest of speakers if you only knew when
to stop … Cambacéres, I sometimes suspect you of
behaving like a talented lawyer who can defend a case or
reject an idea without the slightest reference to his own
personal feelings.
68
Our Corrupt Legal System 69
69
Origins of the two systems 70
by asserting that a deity invented the system
Another implausible and partial solution was to say
morality does not matter. Those who took that
position include Harvard’s Christopher Columbus
Langdell and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr in the 19th
century, and Oxford’s H.L.A. Hart in the 20th.
Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906),
dean of the Harvard law school 1875-95, wore a long
beard. A psychiatrist might ask: ‘What is that man
hiding?’ Perhaps the effects of his invention, the case
method of teaching law. In The Moral Failure of Law
Schools (Troika, November-December 1996), Alan
Hirsch, later Professor of Legal Studies at Williams
College, Massachusetts, explained how the case
method corrupts law students and destroys their
idealism:
70
Our Corrupt Legal System 71
legend has it, snapped at a student: ‘If it’s justice you
want, go to divinity school.’
71
Origins of the two systems 72
until 1931 when Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes
told him that, at 90, it was time to go.
On his Legal 100, Professor McWhirter places
Holmes 18th, Langdell 43rd, and Oxford professor
Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart (1907-92) 89th. He
says Hart argued ‘throughout his career that law
and morality should be separated’, and was ‘the
most important legal philosopher of the 20th
century’. Hart, however, is perhaps better
remembered for being cuckolded by a number of
Oxford dons, including Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-97).
Perhaps they took the view that if justice and
morality should be separated, so could adultery and
morality.
Thane Rosenbaum is a former corporate lawyer
who teaches law at Fordham University, New York.
He wrote in The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal
System Fails to Do What’s Right (HarperCollins, 2004):
72
Our Corrupt Legal System 73
centre, and that judges and lawyers are also reviled
because they say things they know are not true.
Malcolm Turnbull (BCL Oxon), an Australian
politician, was encouraged by elements of his
(Liberal) party in November 2009 to say that global
warming was over-rated. Declining, he said he was
no longer a barrister, and hence could not run an
argument in which he did not believe.
In his book, Professor Rosenbaum suggested a
formula that would at least relieve judges of
hypocrisy:
73
Origins of the two systems 74
Locke (16), James Madison (1), Alexander Hamilton
(2), and John Marshall (3).
The contributions of Locke and Blackstone were
noted earlier. McWhirter said: ‘No figure in history
had a greater effect on the “law” of later generations
than James Madison.’ Madison was responsible for
the US retention of the anti-truth system.
McWhirter said Alexander Hamilton (1757-
1804) was ‘America’s first great business lawyer …
he saw, as few did at the time, the connection
between banking, industry, and national power. The
statutes he drafted and the institutions he created
launched America on course toward becoming the
world’s greatest industrial power’.
Hamilton believed that the business of America
is business and that government by an oligarchy of
rich business men was the best way to build a
powerful country. Perhaps inspired by Britain’s
corrupt Whig oligarchy, he advised a constitutional
convention in 1787:
74
Our Corrupt Legal System 75
consent of the Senate, shall appoint … public
ministers’, including members of Cabinet.
Smart business types can thus shuffle round a
revolving door of business and government for
decades. In 2004 Donald Rumsfeld, 72, had been on
the shuffle for 47 years when President George W.
Bush sacked him as Minister for War. In 2008,
former President G.H.W. Bush, 83, had been
shuffling for 42 years, and Dick Cheney, 67, for 38.
The Yazoo matter offers a glimpse of how
judges would accommodate respectable organised
criminals. OxfordSC reported:
75
Origins of the two systems 76
Marshall (1755-1835), a land speculator and protégé
of Alexander Hamilton, Chief Justice. Chambers
Biographical Dictionary (Larousse, sixth edition 1997)
says Marshall ‘is the single most influential figure in
US legal history … His most important decision was
in the case of Marbury v Madison (1803), which
established the principle of judicial review, asserting
the Court’s authority to determine the
constitutionality of legislation.’
Judges should clearly have the power to act as a
brake on bad legislation, but only if they are
properly trained and appointed. Judicial error is
inevitable when the court consists of untrained
former trial lawyers appointed by dubious
politicians, e.g. Gore v Bush (2000).
Alexander Hamilton took part in a duel with
Aaron Burr (1756-1836) at Weehawken, New Jersey,
on Wednesday, 11 July, 1804. Hamilton, lawyer and
gentleman, aimed high. Burr, lawyer, shot him in the
stomach. Hamilton died next day but his Yazoo
opinion lived on in Fletcher v Peck (1810): Marshall
gave the green light to respectable organised
criminals. OxfordSC says the Contracts Clause of the
Constitution seemed to be on Georgia’s side, but
Marshall said the Yazoo cancellation was
unconstitutional. He upheld the corrupt grants and
voided the legislation which cured them. Article II
Section 4 of the Constitution says bribery warrants
removal of a President, but Marshall took the view
that bribery is appropriate for business. He said:
76
Our Corrupt Legal System 77
It would be indecent in the extreme, upon a private
contract between two individuals, to enter into an inquiry
respecting the corruption of the sovereign power of a
state.
77
Origins of the two systems 78
shortly died of alcoholic poisoning. A Tammany
lawyer called for an investigation. He said Judge
Macrery had been beaten to death. Judge George
Ewald’s wife went to Hines’s waiting room and
announced: ‘I am here to pay the ten thousand
dollars now. It is not time yet, but I would rather
pay it now than have my husband killed later on.’
Hines told Runyon at Lindy’s delicatessen: ‘All
I know is that calling for an investigation was a great
move. I never had to ask anybody for a dollar after
that. So I wasn’t an extortionist any more. I didn’t
have to extort nobody. People gave me gifts.’
FBI boss (1935-72) J. Edgar Hoover (1895-72)
accepted Mafia bribes in the form of tips on fixed
horse races supplied by a cut-out, reporter Walter
Winchell.
Cook County (2003 est. pop. 5.35 million),
Illinois, includes Chicago (2000 census 2.9 million).
Respectable organised criminals on the bench and at
the bar have probably infested its court system since
the county was created in 1831.
Carl Sifakis noted a scale for bribing judges in
The Mafia Encyclopaedia (Checkmark, second edition
1999). Jake (Greasy Thumb) Guzik (1887-1956), a
fixer for the Chicago Mob, devised the scale. Guzik
got his nickname from counting out banknotes for
police and politicians at his table at St Hubert’s Old
English Grill and Chop House. The Guzik Scale
should be multiplied by perhaps 20:
78
Our Corrupt Legal System 79
dollar bill. In municipal courts he will cost you ten. In
circuit or superior courts he wants fifteen. The state
appellate court or the state supreme court is on a par with
the federal courts. By the time a judge reaches such courts
he is middle-aged, thick around the middle, fat between
the ears. He’s heavy. You can’t buy a federal judge for less
than a twenty-dollar bill.
79
Origins of the two systems 80
convicted of taking bribes in three murder cases. He
served 12 years.
Three San Diego judges, G. Dennis Adams,
Michael Greer, and Judge of the Year James A.
Malkus, took bribes from Lawyer of the Year Patrick
Frega. They coached him on running cases;
pressured opposing lawyers to settle, and gave his
cases to ‘friendly’ judges. They all went to prison in
2000. Jurist Walter Olson observed: ‘To paraphrase
Oscar Wilde: losing one local judge in a corruption
scandal is a misfortune. Losing two looks rather like
carelessness. Losing three suggests a pattern.’
In a ‘cash for kids’ extortion, Pennsylvania
judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan were
accused in 2008 of taking US$2.6 million in bribes to
send alleged juvenile offenders to private prisons. In
February 2009, they plea-bargained the penalty
down to seven years, but a judge rejected the
bargain. Ciavarella and Conahan then changed their
plea to not guilty and were charged on 48 counts of
racketeering, extortion and bribery. In October 2009,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expunged the
convictions of some 6500 juveniles sent to prison by
Ciavarella.
Britain. England is England yet. It would be
idle to suppose that Britain, home of systemic
corruption from the 11th century, desisted in the 20th.
An insider-trading scandal in 1912 concerned
the British Marconi company, then about to get a
major order from the Liberal [formerly Whig]
Government. Cabinet Ministers who bought shares
in Marconi’s US subsidiary included David Lloyd
80
Our Corrupt Legal System 81
George (Chancellor of the Exchequer), Herbert
Samuel (Postmaster-General), and Sir Rufus Isaacs
(Attorney-General). Rufus (1860-1935) was brother
of Godfrey Isaacs, managing director of the British
Marconi company.
An inquiry whitewashed the crimes, and Rufus,
now Lord Reading, became Chief Justice in 1913.
This gave him the chance in 1914 to invent a
discretion (see Christie below) which enables judges
to conceal ALL evidence against people like, well,
him. Now Marquis of Reading, he decently waited
for a year after his wife’s death in 1930 before
marrying his private secretary, Stella, 37.
The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act of 1925
came into being because a pair of organised
criminals, Prime Minister (1916-22) David Lloyd
George (1863-1945), a lawyer, and his bagman,
Maundy Gregory, extorted bribes for honours.
Gregory charged what the traffic would bear. Lloyd
George invented the Order of the British Empire
(OBE) in 1917; by 1922, he had awarded 25,000
OBEs. Discussing the bribes in a 1998 Churchill
Society Lecture, John Lidstone said multiplying the
1920s values of the bribes by 100 gives rough current
values. The scale, with current values in brackets,
were: OBE £100 (£10,000). Knight: £10,000-£15,000
(£1 million-£1.5 million). Baronet: from £25,000 (£2.5
million). Baron: £30,000-£50,000 (£3 million-£5
million). Viscount: £80,000-£120,000 (£8 million-£12
million).
Lloyd George decently gave the Liberal Party
some of the proceeds, but kept an estimated £1.5
81
Origins of the two systems 82
million (£150 million) for himself. Gregory got a flat
£30,000 a year (£3 million, £18 million) over the six
years Lloyd George was Prime Minister. In 1933,
Maundy Gregory was charged and got six months
and a fine of £50 (£5000), but Lloyd George was not
charged. In 1945, he was made an Earl.
There has been suspicion that later politicians
and their bagmen extorted bribes for honours, but
Maundy Gregory remains the only person charged
under the 1925 Act.
India. The Chief Justice of India, Sam Bharucha,
implied in 2001 that upwards of 20% of judges were
corrupt. He said: ‘ … more than 80 per cent of the
Judges in this country, across the board, are honest
and incorruptible. It is that smaller percentage that
brings the entire judiciary into disrepute.’
Australia. Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick
was accused in 1980 of not disclosing his interest in
companies before the court. The offence carried a
maximum prison sentence of two years. Barwick
said, but not on oath, that he was the best judge of
his impartiality, and was not charged.
Lionel Murphy, Attorney-General in a Labor
Government, went up to the High Court in 1975. In
1985, Justice Murphy was charged with attempting
to pervert justice on behalf of “my little mate”,
lawyer Morgan Ryan. Justice Murphy was found
guilty but got a re-trial and was acquitted. An
inquiry by three retired judges found 14 instances of
his possible criminal behaviour, but the inquiry died
with him in 1986 and a Labor Government sealed
the inquiry papers until 2016.
82
Our Corrupt Legal System 83
A Sydney organised criminal, George Freeman,
used the J. Edgar Hoover technique to bribe NSW
Chief Magistrate Murray Farquhar, but did not
bother to use a cut-out. He rang Farquhar every
Wednesday with tips which were 97-98% accurate,
according to Farquhar’s clerk, Camille Abood, who
put the money on and collected the winnings.
Farquhar was imprisoned in 1985 for perverting
justice in a case of theft of $55,000.
83
What common lawyers do
84
Our Corrupt Legal System 85
Henry Brinkelow (d. 1546): ‘The lawyer can not
vnderstond the matter tyl he fele his mony.’
Jonathan Swift (1726): ‘ … a Society of Men
among us, bred up from their Youth in the Art of
proving by Words multiplied for the Purpose, that
White is Black, and Black is White, according as they
are paid.’
Jeremy Bentham (1821): ‘The duty of an
advocate is to take fees, and in return for those fees
to display to the utmost advantage whatsoever
falsehoods the solicitor has put into his brief.’
Mexican curse: ‘May your life be filled with
lawyers.’
Don Vito Corleone: ‘A lawyer with a briefcase
can steal more than a thousand men with guns.’ –
Mario Puzo, The Godfather, 1969.
Seymour Washman: ‘All successful criminal
lawyers I know are egomaniacs... there isn't a
criminal lawyer I know – certainly including myself
– who hasn't interpreted a not guilty verdict as proof
of his unique gift, his insight into how to manipulate
people.’ (Confessions of a Defense Attorney, Village
Voice, 28 September 1978.)
Lamar Quin: ‘Mouthpieces for sale to the
highest bidder, available to anybody, any crook, any
sleazebag with enough money to pay our
outrageous fees … you’ll meet so many crooked
lawyers you’ll want to quit and find an honest job.’
(John Grisham, lawyer-novelist, The Firm, 1991.)
On the other hand, Viscount (Frederick)
Maugham (1866-1958), Chancery judge 1928-34,
Lord Chancellor 1938-39 said: ‘Lawyers are the
85
What common lawyers do
2. Serial lying
86
Our Corrupt Legal System 87
admit that there is occasion for shame in our profession. It
would be overly dramatic to say that it is a surplus of
shame that is driving lawyers from the profession, but
something is.
87
What common lawyers do
3. Ethics
88
Our Corrupt Legal System 89
Do you think there’s a case to argue that some of the
ethical rules that lawyers have actually almost encourage
dishonesty among lawyers? – Yes I do. One of the
examples is that a lawyer can ethically deny an allegation
in the opponent’s pleading knowing it to be true.
You’re kidding. So you can basically lie? – Well,
what lawyers would say is that you are putting the other
side to proof.
It’s a lie though, isn’t it? – It is.
89
What common lawyers do
90
Our Corrupt Legal System 91
in Wonderland system. They argued that the
attempt to procure Annesley’s execution was 1) A
perfectly proper legal proceeding, and 2) So wicked
that no one could believe a lawyer and his client
would be party to it. Thomas Burroughs, for
Anglesey, put the second argument to Giffard:
91
What common lawyers do
92
Our Corrupt Legal System 93
Lawyers today routinely resort to blackmail in
negligence and libel cases. A more polite term,
greymail, is used when they demand documents
they know governments dare not disclose.
Compared to blackmail and conspiracy to murder,
lying may seem relatively mild, but lawyers control
evidence and habitual lying necessarily poisons
justice at the fount.
Law professor Monroe Freedman, then of
George Washington University Law Center,
published Professional Responsibility of the Criminal
Defense Lawyer: The Three Hardest Questions in the
Michigan Law Review in 1966. The questions, with his
answers in brackets, were:
93
What common lawyers do
94
Our Corrupt Legal System 95
Dishonest, fraudulent and deceitful trial lawyers
become judges without missing a beat.
A Sydney lawyer, Stuart Littlemore, stated
lawyers’ ethics accurately when Andrew Denton
interviewed him on Channel 7, a television station,
in October 1995:
95
What common lawyers do
96
Our Corrupt Legal System 97
cluster of values – procedural justice and the defense of
rights – that are associated with the adversary system.
97
What common lawyers do
98
Our Corrupt Legal System 99
question, Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of
the Legal Profession? in the Alabama Law Review of
December 2007. In what may be termed the Barton
Hypothesis, he answered his question thus at page
two of his 52-page (14,821 words) paper:
99
What common lawyers do
100
Our Corrupt Legal System 101
said in 2002: ‘Like sharks smell blood, lawyers smell
money.’ In Anatomy of a Murder (1958), Judge John
Voelker (1903-91) has lawyer Paul Biegler echo the
Mafia motto, ‘Get the money, and trust no-one.’
Lawyer Arthur Train wrote in The Confessions of
Artemus Quibble 77 (1924):
101
What common lawyers do
102
Our Corrupt Legal System 103
Adler, of The Wall Street Journal, as reporting that
jury consultants openly admit that:
7. Zealous prosecutors
103
What common lawyers do
104
Our Corrupt Legal System 105
If it is wrong for police to lie to put criminals in
prison, it is wrong for lawyers to lie to keep them
out.
105
What common lawyers do
106
Our Corrupt Legal System 107
With all the training given to physicians (college, pre-
med, medical school, internship, years of specialist
training) no hospital in the world would permit a general
practitioner (or a dermatologist) to do surgery. But with
no special training, the law permits a real estate lawyer, a
banking counsel or a legal scholar to become a judge one
day and on the morrow sentence a defendant to thirty
years in prison, grant a divorce, adjudicate insanity,
render judgment in an accident case, hold a director liable
for damages, grant an injunction in a labor dispute,
provide for custody of children, reapportion a legislative
district, punish for contempt or reduce the tax assessment
on an office building. How long does it take a new judge
to get a smattering of the learning necessary to do all
these things? … Does it not make sense to train the judges
before they go on the bench … Should not the judge be
trained in his special discipline before being given the
awesome responsibility of sitting in judgment on others?
107
What common lawyers do
108
Our Corrupt Legal System 109
Swinfen v Lord Chelmsford (Exchequer Court, 1860),
the judges were put to the exigency of protecting a
former – and, as it turned out, future – Lord
Chancellor who had cheated his client.
Lord Chelmsford (1794-1878) had a glittering
career. Born Fred Thesiger, at 13 he was a plucky
little midshipmite at the Battle of Copenhagen.
Perhaps tiring for the moment of rum, sodomy and
the lash, he left the Navy at 17 and took to the bar
and Tory politics. He rose to Solicitor General,
Attorney General, and Lord Chancellor in 1858, but
the 14th Earl of Derby’s Government fell in 1859, and
he fell with it.
Down on his luck and with mouths to feed – his
son, Alf, a future appellate judge, was still at Oxford
– Lord Chelmsford had to resort to the bar. A client,
Ms Patricia Swinfen, instructed him by telegram not
to settle but, finding himself double-booked, he took
the time-honoured course of settling the action
which promised the smaller fee, Ms Swinfen’s.
A June 2004 editorial in FLAC (For Legally
Abused Citizens) Australia noted how Pollock et al
defrauded Ms Swinfen and established immunity.
The ‘reasoning’ of the court was: we can’t find any
case where a barrister has been successfully sued for
negligence. Therefore, it must be the law that
barristers cannot be sued for negligence. That notion
still obtains in Australia, if in few other countries.
The most recent assertion of lawyers’ immunity
– largely on the ground that legal actions must have
some finality – was D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal
Aid (Australian High Court, March 10, 2005). Those
109
What common lawyers do
110
Our Corrupt Legal System 111
guilty on drug charges did not get a fair trial because
the trial judge, Ian Dodd, was sometimes asleep. The
judges, who were paid AU$7,254.42 a week, were
apparently unaware that no trial is fair because
fairness means truth.
Oxford law professor Patrick Atiyah wrote in
Justice and predictability in the common law (NSW Law
Journal 1992): ‘ … less predictability in the law
means more litigation.’ Justice Sir Frank McKinnon
(1871-1946) said in Salisbury v Gilmore (1942) that the
law lords are ‘the voices of infallibility, by a narrow
majority’. David Goldberg QC, a London tax lawyer,
said in 1997:
111
What common lawyers do
112
Our Corrupt Legal System 113
innocent until proved Irish. At the 1974 trial of the
innocent Birmingham Six, Justice Sir Nigel Cyprian
Bridge (1917-2007) told the jury: ‘I am of the opinion,
not shared by all my brothers on the bench, that if a
judge has formed a clear view it is much better to let
the jury see that.’ Bridge summed up for a
conviction. Mike Mansfield QC noted his technique
in Presumed Guilty: The British Legal System Exposed
(Heinemann, 1993):
113
What common lawyers do
114
Our Corrupt Legal System 115
Archer a peer in 1992. In 2001, Lord Archer got four
years for perjury at the libel trial.
9. A country’s values
115
The corrupt civil process
116
Our Corrupt Legal System 117
instructions and returned some days after the due
date, May 5, 2005.
Judge Pearson refused to accept the trousers
and sued the Chungs for US$67 million. He claimed
inconvenience, mental anguish, and lawyers’ fees of
$500,000 for representing himself.
In what must be noted as exceptions to the
Barton Hypothesis, 13 judges ruled against Judge
Pearson: Judge Judith Barntoff in June 2007, three
appellate judges in December 2008, and nine
appellate judges in March 2009. Donors met the
Chungs’ lawyers’ fees, $100,000, but the stress of
four years of litigation cannot be calculated.
Sir Hugh Laddie QC (b. 1946), a former Justice
of the UK High Court, reflected on the length and
cost of civil litigation in Legal Week on May 26, 2006.
He wrote: “Go back to the drawing board and
consider the possibility that the adversarial system is
past its sell-by date.”
Legal Week polled senior partners at 100 law
firms on whether the system had passed its sell-by
date. The organ reported on June 8, 2006 that 40%
agreed. The other 60% said the adversary system is
‘an essential pillar of British justice’.
On May 22, 2007, Sir Hugh Laddie, now
Professor of Intellectual Property Law at University
College London, noted in The Times that a small to
medium patent case costs three to 10 times more in
England than in Germany or the Netherlands.
Sir Hugh wrote: ‘Perhaps it is time to do the
unthinkable and start making our system much
more like that used by our continental colleagues.’
117
The corrupt civil process
1. Interminable pleadings
118
Our Corrupt Legal System 119
said ‘they did not introduce a system which
operated to define the issues in dispute between the
parties’. A committee chaired by Lord Chief Justice
Coleridge in 1881 ‘supposed’ from the statistics for
more than 20,000 cases in 1879 that ‘pleadings were
of little use’, but all further attempts at reform have
been sabotaged.
Mullany quoted Peter Hayes QC, of Melbourne,
as stating in a 1998 paper for the Law Institute of
Victoria:
119
The corrupt civil process
2. Interminable discovery
120
Our Corrupt Legal System 121
inquiry’ which might help the lawyer’s case or
damage his adversary’s. (Emphasis added.)
That made discovery open-ended. Brett became
Master of the Rolls in 1883, Baron Esher in 1885, and
Viscount Esher on his retirement, aged 82, in 1897.
Thanks to him, millions of documents can be
discovered, but only a very few are relevant. A UK
appellate judge, Lord Justice Johan Steyn said in
1992:
121
The corrupt civil process
122
Our Corrupt Legal System 123
amongst junior practitioners who had been ensnared in
the discovery process was: ‘I have been Santossed’.
123
The corrupt civil process
124
Our Corrupt Legal System 125
1932), an appeal concerning an alleged (but
unproved) snail in a bottle of Scottish ginger beer.
He said:
125
The corrupt civil process
126
Our Corrupt Legal System 127
The US Surgeon-General warned against
smoking in 1964. Richard Boeken, 57, smoked 40
Marlboro cigarettes a day and got cancer, but swore
he did not know smoking was dangerous until 1994.
In 2000, Los Angeles jurors ordered Philip Morris
shareholders to pay Boeken US$3000 million, of
which his lawyers presumably expected to get at
least $1000 million. On appeal, the payout was
reduced to US$50 million.
Brett Dawson says that even in a small country
like Australia, lawyers get $1200 million a year from
personal injury litigation, largely from lump sum
payouts. A boy got eight cuts at a Sydney school in
1984. In 2002, a jury gave him $2.5 million, or
$312,500 per cut. Obstetricians, i.e. their patients, pay
A$140,000 a year for negligence insurance. Swedish
obstetricians pay the equivalent of A$500 a year.
Justice David Ipp, now of the NSW Supreme
Court, told a conference of anaesthetists in Perth in
May 2004 (Personal Responsibility in Australian Society
and Law: Striving for Balance) that, particularly since
the 1970s, ‘courts throughout the common law
world have awarded damages to plaintiffs without
paying any regard to the concept of personal
responsibility’. And:
127
The corrupt civil process
… the case for all claims arising out of motor vehicle and
industrial accidents being decided on a no-fault basis by
an administrative tribunal is unanswerable … more
people would be able to go to court and the taxpayer
would be better off in the end.
128
Our Corrupt Legal System 129
blackmail and increases the money available to care
for victims. It also eliminates Santa Claus judges and
jurors, but lawyers say it deprives people of basic
common law rights. There is more money in rights
than justice.
Libel. Criminal law has a presumption of
innocence for defendants and judges conceal the
truth about them. Libel law has a presumption of
guilt for defendants and judges conceal the truth
about plaintiffs. Witnesses for defendants can say
they believe the plaintiff’s reputation is not good,
but they can’t say why.
Libel law has thus protected rogues, including
organised criminals, some powerful and respectable,
for seven centuries. It began in 1275 when Edward
I’s Statute of Westminster invented the crime of
Scandalum Magnatum, slandering the magnates, most
of whom were robber barons. Truth, at least
nominally, was a defence. The legislation was re-
enacted in 1378 to include judges, prelates, and
certain officials.
The printing press, introduced to England by
William Caxton in 1477, threatened the reputations
of the powerful. The Licensing Act of 1538 forbade
books to be printed without a licence, thus enforcing
pre-publication censorship. Scandalum Magnatum
was re-enacted in 1554 and 1559 with new clauses
on ‘seditious words’ which might cause disaffection
against authority. The punishment fitted the crime:
ears were cut off for a spoken slur; the right hand for
a written slur.
129
The corrupt civil process
130
Our Corrupt Legal System 131
year to newspapers at the time of the French
Revolution. Nine newspapers got an annual bribe;
The Times got £300 (c. £30,000)
Libel law, however, has proved the most
effective and enduring method of silencing the
Press. Professor Theodore Plucknett says that in 1704
(the year modern journalism began) Chief Justice
(1689-1710) Sir John Holt (1642-1710) said ‘it is very
necessary for all governments that people should
have a good opinion of it’. Professor Plucknett said it
seemed to follow that:
131
The corrupt civil process
132
Our Corrupt Legal System 133
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.’ But for 173 years the onus of proof in US
libel cases, as in other common law countries, lay on
the defendant rather than the complainant.
Anthony Lewis (b. 1927) notes in Freedom for the
Thought that We Hate – A Biography of the First
Amendment (Basic Books 2008) that libel law in
several US States had what lawyers called the ‘three
galloping presumptions’:
133
The corrupt civil process
134
Our Corrupt Legal System 135
because English law heavily favours plaintiffs … So
there have been celebrated cases where newspapers
have published the truth, yet lost.’ Sydney cannot be
far behind. John Wicklein, reported in the Columbia
Journalism Review (November/December 1991):
135
The corrupt civil process
136
Our Corrupt Legal System 137
Fred Hanson, Police Commissioner of New
South Wales, who falsely denied he was corrupt.
Murray Farquhar, chief Stipendiary Magistrate
of New South Wales, who falsely denied he was
corrupt.
Sir Les Thiess, a Queensland developer, who
falsely denied he bribed the Premier of Queensland,
Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen.
Sir Bob Askin (1907-81, NSW Premier 1965-75,
falsely denied he was an organised criminal and
would probably have got money from an honest
politician, John Hatton, but died before the case got
on.
In 2005, Australia’s first law officer, Philip
Ruddock, announced a plan to allow people to sue
from the grave. I reminded him in Justinian that
Voltaire observed in 1785: ‘We owe respect to the
living; to the dead we owe only truth’, and that his
legislation would inevitably be dubbed the
Askin/Murphy clause in honour of Askin and High
Court Justice Lionel Murphy, who was also a
criminal. Ruddock eventually dropped the plan.
‘Libel tourism’ is the practice of suing US
authors and publishers in London because in the US
the complainant has to prove the slur is false, but in
England the defendant has to prove the slur is true.
However, US judges have taken the view that libel
defendants cannot get justice in Britain. US courts
usually enforce orders made by overseas courts but
not when the orders are based on laws ‘repugnant’
to US law. In 1997, a Maryland court refused to
enforce a British libel verdict because, on
137
The corrupt civil process
138
Our Corrupt Legal System 139
Funding Evil (Bonus Books, 2003), by a New
York scholar, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, was not
published in England, but 23 books got into the
country via online purchases. Mahfouz sued in
London. Dr Ehrenfeld did not waste money on
defending the action in 2005. In her absence, the libel
judge, Sir David Eady, specifically rejected
assertions that Mahfouz was forum shopping, gave
him US$230,000 and ordered Dr Ehrenfeld to
apologise to him and destroy all existing copies of
her book.
Reacting to the Mahfouz-Ehrenfeld case, state
legislators in New York unanimously passed a law
to protect New York authors and publishers against
libel tourism in 2008.
Signing the legislation on 1 May 2008, Governor
David Paterson said: ‘The statute combats such
“forum shopping” in two ways. First, it bars New
York courts from enforcing a foreign libel judgment
unless the country where it was decided grants the
same or better protection as US standards for
freedom of speech. Second, it expands an
individual’s ability to have a court declare a foreign
libel judgment invalid in New York. Without this
statute, an author could be forced to live indefinitely
under the pall of a libel judgment, deterring
publishers from disseminating that author’s work.’
Rory Lancman, a member of the New York
Legislative Assembly said: ‘Today we reaffirm New
York's place as the free speech capital of the world.’
A Free Speech Protection Act was introduced
into the US Congress in 2008. If enacted, the
139
The corrupt civil process
140
Our Corrupt Legal System 141
have got six months’ wages, perhaps $30,000, or
been reinstated on two conditions: that he apologise
to the lady, and that she stop making a nuisance of
herself. In Mackenzie v Miller Brewing (1997),
Milwaukee jurors gave Mackenzie US$26.6 million.
His San Francisco lawyers, Littler, Mendelson,
presumably got at least US$8 million.
Emily Couric reported in The Trial Lawyers: The
Nation's Top Litigators Tell How They Win (St Martins
Press, 1990) the case of a New York man dismissed
for engaging in auto-eroticism in his office. Jurors
agreed that the employer had negligently failed to
protect him from sexually harassing himself and
gave him $2.1 million.
Other verdicts: an American Airlines manager
got $US7 million for ‘discrimination’ when she was
not promoted; a Texaco female employee got $US20
million when she was not promoted; a sacked
employee got $US1.4 million for ‘emotional pain and
trauma’ resulting from an unfavourable reference.
141
The corrupt civil process
142
Our Corrupt Legal System 143
is deducted at source. Australia was a vaguely ‘fair
go all round’ sort of country. Section 260 of the
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 proclaimed:
143
The corrupt civil process
144
Our Corrupt Legal System 145
outside Parliament. Menzies could have sent him
somewhere harmless, like Ambassador to Uttar
Pradesh or the US, but in 1964, he made him Chief
Justice, where his lies on tax matters were frankly
criminal. In Casuarina P/L v the Federal Commissioner
of Taxation (1970), Barwick, Sir Victor Windeyer, Sir
Harry Gibbs, and Sir William Owen finished off the
1936 Tax Act. David Marr said Casuarina concerned
‘a wholly artificial scheme … to avoid tax … The
Casuarina case became the cornerstone of the tax
avoidance industry’.
Barwick, Gibbs, and Sir Douglas Menzies
committed another fraud on the revenue and pay-as-
you-earn taxpayers in Curran v Federal Commissioner
of Taxation (1974). The lie this time was that a profit
of $2782 was a loss of $186,046. John Ahern, a
Brisbane accountant, explained how Curran worked
in A Taxing Time (1990, Copyright Publishing). This
is a précis of Ahern’s explanation:
145
The corrupt civil process
146
Our Corrupt Legal System 147
innumerable interpretative guidelines and rulings issued
by the ATO [Australian Tax Office]…
147
The corrupt civil process
7. Class actions
148
Our Corrupt Legal System 149
whatever the trial lawyer cause of the moment may
happen to be.
Olson concluded:
149
The corrupt civil process
150
Our Corrupt Legal System 151
The great Tobacco-Medicaid wheeze of the 1990s
should dispel any doubt that the adversary system is
a business. The venture offended a rule which ‘bars
a lawyer from charging or collecting a clearly
excessive fee’, and some cases involved ‘pay to play’,
i.e. a lawyer donates to a law officer’s election
campaign and in return gets public legal work. The
American Bar Association deplores the practice.
The Surgeon-General warned that smoking is a
risk in 1964. Most tobacco suits thereafter failed on
the ground that the complainant failed to exercise
personal responsibility. In 1993, a Mississippi
lawyer, Mike Lewis, gave Mike Moore, the
Mississippi (Democrat) Attorney-General, the idea
of shifting the goalposts from individuals to
taxpayers who paid the Medicaid funds which cared
for sufferers. Moore invited Dickie Scruggs – surely
a Dickens invention – to research and develop a
Medicaid case.
Scruggs (b. 1946), a Democrat, had contributed
to Mike Moore’s election campaign, and had earlier
worked with an Alabama lawyer, William Roberts
Wilson Jnr on asbestos cases. Wilson later claimed
that Scruggs cheated him out of millions from the
asbestos litigation and used the money to fund
tobacco claims. Wilson’s case against Scruggs was
still on foot in 2009.
In May 1994, Moore sought from tobacco
companies $940 million said to have been spent by
Mississippi on people with tobacco-related illnesses.
To persuade other state attorneys-general to join the
151
The corrupt civil process
152
Our Corrupt Legal System 153
conscience of the Court.' The average contingency
fee worked out at about 8.8%. Levy told me in May
2005:
153
The corrupt civil process
154
Our Corrupt Legal System 155
of DePaul University, Chicago, wrote in a section
called Defense of the Adversarial Process in his Readings
on Adversarial Justice: The American Approach to
Adjudication (West, 1988, sponsored by the American
Bar Association): ‘The adversary process provides
litigants with the means to control their lawsuits.
The parties are pre-eminent in choosing the forum,
designating the proofs, and running the process.’
However, Professor David Luban stated in a
paper, Twenty Theses on Adversarial Ethics, for a 1997
Brisbane conference, Beyond the Adversarial System:
155
The corrupt civil process
156
Our Corrupt Legal System 157
E. 24 anti-truth devices
* indicates a rule which conceals evidence
157
24 anti-truth devices
158
Our Corrupt Legal System 159
The community are entitled to expect the media to
report what is concealed from their representatives,
the jurors, at important trials. The splash in The
(Brisbane) Courier-Mail on the day after the verdict
in the corruption trial of Queensland police chief Sir
Terence Lewis in 1991 (see below: Concealing any or
all evidence) was WHAT THE JURY DID NOT
HEAR, by Jason Gagliardi. The Editor, Desmond
Houghton, then instructed his court reporters to stay
in court during legal argument in major trials and
note and later report the concealed evidence.
The trial of John Thomas Sweeney (b. 1956) on a
charge of first degree (premeditated) murder
illustrates some of the anti-truth devices noted
below. After an actress, Dominique Dunne (1956-82),
left Sweeney, he strangled her in November 1982.
The medical evidence at his 1983 trial was that it
takes a strangler at least four minutes to kill his
victim.
Among the evidence concealed by Judge Burton
Katz was evidence by a Lillian Pierce that Sweeney
had assaulted her 10 times during a two-year
relationship, and evidence by the victim’s mother,
Ellen Dunne, that Dominique had come to her in
hysterics when Sweeney first beat her. Katz
concealed the evidence on the ground that the
‘prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.’
(See below The Christie discretion.) He also
concealed all the victim’s statements in the last five
weeks of her life to her agent, fellow actors, and
friends that she feared Sweeney. (See below:
Concealing second-hand evidence.)
159
24 anti-truth devices
160
Our Corrupt Legal System 161
407), a Syrian lawyer who became Archbishop of
Constantinople. The suspect’s duty became canon
law and was quoted by Justice Ken Marks, of the
Victorian Supreme Court, in his 25,000-word article,
‘Thinking up’ about the right of silence and unsworn
statements (Victorian Law Institute Journal, 1984).
The canon law was: Licet nemo tenetur seipsum
prodere, tamen proditus per famam tenetur seipsum
ostendere utrum possit suam innocentiam ostendere et
seipsum purgare. That is: ‘Although no one is
compelled to accuse himself, yet one accused by
rumour is compelled to present himself to show his
innocence, if he can, and to clear himself.’
Justice Marks noted that in 1568 Sir James Dyer,
Chief Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, omitted
everything except ‘no one is compelled to accuse
himself’ (nemo tenetur seipsum prodere), and freed a
suspect on that basis. A lawyer, Rick McDonnell,
drew Justice Marks’s paper to my attention in 1997,
13 years after it appeared. When I asked the judge
for a copy, he said I was only the second person to
speak to him about it.
Judges ignored Dyer’s lie for 200 years. Yale
professor John Langbein’s research (published in
1994) on the period 1660-1800 showed there was not
‘a single case in which an accused refused to speak
on asserted grounds of privilege, or in which he
makes the least allusion to a privilege against self-
incrimination’. However, Blackstone wrote in his
Commentaries (1765-69): ‘At the common law, nemo
tenebatur prodere seipsum.’ (No-one was compelled to
accuse himself.). That was not the common law at
161
24 anti-truth devices
162
Our Corrupt Legal System 163
… immunity from being questioned is a rule which by its
nature can protect the guilty only. It is not a rule that may
operate to acquit some guilty for fear of convicting some
innocent.
163
24 anti-truth devices
2. Prove it!
164
Our Corrupt Legal System 165
logical conclusion when a judge conceals ALL the
evidence and then invites a bemused prosecutor to
prove his case. That happened in an Australian case
which concerned an alleged white collar theft of $66
million. (See below. Concealing evidence said to have
been improperly gained. )
Three New York detectives, Gescard Isnora,
Michael Oliver and Marc Cooper, fired 50 shots into
an unarmed man, Sean Bell, in November 2006. They
were charged with manslaughter. An ounce of
evidence is said to be worth a pound of demeanour.
In April 2008, Judge Arthur Cooperman, 74, sitting
without a jury, rejected the evidence of all 50
prosecutions witnesses, partly, he said, because of
their demeanour. The detectives refused to give
evidence. Judge Cooperman was thus not able to
assess their demeanour. He found them not guilty.
3. Legal aid
165
24 anti-truth devices
166
Our Corrupt Legal System 167
1946): ‘If one starts with the general proposition that
all evidence that is logically probative [tending to
prove guilt] is admissible unless excluded [by a
specific rule], then evidence of this kind does not
have to seek a justification.’ The law lords said (R v
Hall, 1952) Goddard was wrong because his view
tended to subvert the presumption of innocence. He
might have replied that all probative evidence tends
to subvert the presumption of innocence, but he had
to toe their lordships’ line.
5. Precedent
167
24 anti-truth devices
168
Our Corrupt Legal System 169
lawyer, may mentally tick off the fabrications as they
are produced.
John Dobies, a Sydney lawyer, pilloried the
theory of the case in what he called The Polar Bear
Defence. If there were scratches on the body of a
murder victim, the murderer may have been a polar
bear. The lawyers would hire witnesses expert on
the incidence of polar bears in Sydney, and others
prepared to swear they saw a polar bear that day.
Professor David Luban wrote in Lawyers and
Justice:
169
24 anti-truth devices
170
Our Corrupt Legal System 171
Tampoe off for bringing the profession into
disrepute. She said:
171
24 anti-truth devices
9. The lecture
172
Our Corrupt Legal System 173
My lecture was proceeding nicely to schedule.
‘You're learning rapidly,’ I said, nodding approvingly.
‘Merely add legal justification or excuse and I'll mark you
an A.’
‘And you say that a man is not justified in killing a
man who has just raped and beat up his wife?’
‘Morally, perhaps, but not legally.’
10. Delay
1. Delay.
2. Confusion.
3. Allegations of conspiracy by the police and
prosecuting authorities to conceal and tamper with the
evidence, thus raising a reasonable doubt.
4. Defences set out in the excellent books.
173
24 anti-truth devices
174
Our Corrupt Legal System 175
11. Plea-bargaining
175
24 anti-truth devices
176
Our Corrupt Legal System 177
Brother John Maguire has faced eight [separate] trials on
child sex abuse charges. Eight times, including yesterday,
he has been acquitted, with none of the jurors ever told of
the other allegations against him … Jurors at each trial,
before Judge Megan Latham at the NSW District Court
since last November, were therefore unaware of the
extensive allegations against Brother Maguire … ‘It
becomes one person’s word against another’, one
complainant said yesterday.
177
24 anti-truth devices
178
Our Corrupt Legal System 179
her temporary insanity gave her an irresistible
impulse to wound.
Anu Singh. Helen Garner reported in Joe
Cinque's Consolation: A True Story of Death, Grief and
the Law (Picador, 2004) that Anu Singh, 25, a self-
obsessed drama queen and final year law student in
Canberra, Australia, got advice on how to inject an
overdose of heroin in September 1997.
During the night of Saturday, 25 October 1997,
Singh put a knockout drug, Rohypnol, in the coffee
of her amiable boy friend, Joe Cinque, 26, a civil
engineer. At about 3 am on the Sunday, Singh
injected heroin into Cinque’s body, but he failed to
die. She went out, bought more heroin and injected
him again at about 10 am. He died about 2 pm. She
was charged with murder.
In April 1998, the trial judge, Ken Crispin,
sitting without a jury, agreed with psychiatrists who
said Singh’s responsibility was diminished because
she was somewhat mentally disturbed. He found
she was not guilty of murder but guilty of
manslaughter. He gave her a minimum of four
years, backdated to the date of her incarceration,
October 26, 1997.
Sing passed her law finals in prison, and was
out in October 2001. A glittering career was
predicted. Adversarial cross-examination is the
Theatre of Cruelty. The cruellest action is robbing a
person of his life.
Garner noted ‘the ugly divide between morals
and the law’. She asked whether ‘the moral failure of
the law’ gives judges an ‘icy chill’? The answer is no.
179
24 anti-truth devices
180
Our Corrupt Legal System 181
Justice Sir Francis Buller (1746-1800) did the
decent thing. In Wilson v Rastall (1792) he decided
earlier judges were wrong, and that the privilege
belongs to the client, not the lawyer. Rich criminals
could now conspire with lawyers safe in the
knowledge that only criminals could waive the
privilege.
In 1827, Jeremy Bentham, whose clothed
skeleton still gazes amiably at passers-by in the seat
of learning he founded, University College London,
formulated an unanswerable argument: if the client
is innocent, the lawyer has no guilty secret to betray;
if guilty, no injustice flows from its absence. He said
the privilege thus had no legitimate purpose, and
should be abolished.
Henry Brougham, who had successfully
blackmailed George IV in 1820, was Lord Chancellor
1830-33. Lord Brougham ruled that any legal
transaction might lead to litigation; all transactions
involving lawyers must therefore be secret.
Justice Sir James Knight-Bruce (1791-1866) made
an argument for secrecy in Pearse v Pearse (1846). He
begins with a lie; descends into puerility and finally
invokes Othello to claim that truth does not matter.
He said:
181
24 anti-truth devices
182
Our Corrupt Legal System 183
This week a national newspaper ran a fascinating story
about absolutely nothing. The Guardian reported on its
front page on October 13th that a question had been
tabled by an MP in Parliament, but that the newspaper
could not reveal ‘who has asked the question, what the
question is, which minister might answer it, or where the
question is to be found’. The reason, it explained no less
cryptically, was that ‘legal obstacles, which cannot be
identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be
mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret’.
183
24 anti-truth devices
184
Our Corrupt Legal System 185
examination which might show he was wrong,
confused, or simply lying. If that were a valid excuse
for concealing evidence, judges would not be bound
by precedents made before, say, 1900. Nor would we
accept that the US broke from Britain, or that Britain
won the Battle of Waterloo.
O.J. Simpson was accused of having cut the
throat of his wife, Nicole, on Sunday, 12 June, 1994.
In January 1995, Judge Lance Ito used the hearsay
rule to conceal evidence of her diary entries in which
she said she was afraid Simpson might kill her, and
evidence that she rang a refuge five days before her
murder and said Simpson was stalking her and that
she was afraid. Judge Ito said:
185
24 anti-truth devices
186
Our Corrupt Legal System 187
charged with murdering one baby. The trial judge
let in evidence of 12 other dead babies found in the
yards of their various previous homes. The guilty
verdict was appealed up to the Privy Council in
England on the basis that evidence of the other 12
murders was unfair to the Makins.
In Makin v Attorney-General of NSW, the Privy
Council dismissed the appeal, but Lord Chancellor
(1886 and 1892-95) Farrer Herschell (1837-99) used
words which have been taken to mean that pattern
evidence will almost never be admitted. Herschell
said:
187
24 anti-truth devices
188
Our Corrupt Legal System 189
could see he was still a friend of the family. The jury
took only three hours to find Van Der Baan not
guilty. Even Dominick Dunne could not have
improved on the words of Mrs Wilson’s brother:
189
24 anti-truth devices
190
Our Corrupt Legal System 191
federal sex cases. A few states, including California,
Indiana, Illinois and Missouri, adopted similar rules.
In 2004, British Home Secretary David Blunkett,
announced a plan to give judges a discretion to let
jurors hear of an accused’s previous convictions. He
said: ‘These reforms put victims at the heart of the
justice system. Trials should be a search for the truth
[!] and juries should be trusted with all the relevant
evidence to help them to reach proper and fair
decisions.’
Blunkett no doubt meant well, but Professor
Benjamin Barton would say it is unwise to give
judges a discretion in matters which affect lawyers’
financial interests. And if the Government really
believed that trials should be a search for truth, they
would abolish the other 23 anti-truth devices.
Australian police and other experts have
requested RICO-type legislation since 1984, but the
rule against pattern evidence continues to protect
white-collar organised criminals, the Calabrian
‘Ndrangheta, and sex criminals.
191
24 anti-truth devices
192
Our Corrupt Legal System 193
Printed accounts [in Chicago] had Ricca telling his
lawyers to find out who had the final say in granting him
a speedy release, saying: ‘That man must want something:
money, favours, a seat in the Supreme Court. Find out
what he wants and get it for him.’
Anybody can use a gun. The Hump uses his head. He can
shoot if he has to, but he likes to negotiate with cash when
he can. I like that in a man.
193
24 anti-truth devices
194
Our Corrupt Legal System 195
A jury correctly found that Edward Coolidge had
cut the throat of Pamela Mason, 14, but in Coolidge v
New Hampshire (1971), the Supreme Court
overturned the verdict on the ground said the local
Attorney General was wrong to issue warrants to
search Coolidge’s car. Judge Rothwax said:
195
24 anti-truth devices
196
Our Corrupt Legal System 197
not guilty verdicts can never be wrong (see Double
Jeopardy below).
The obvious remedy is to admit all improperly-
gained evidence if it is reliable, and to punish erring
detectives at a special tribunal. That has not been
tried, perhaps because detectives might insist that
lawyers who pervert justice should also be
punished.
197
24 anti-truth devices
198
Our Corrupt Legal System 199
franchisees, including Sydney yachtsman Jack
Rooklyn. Lewis obviously lied in giving evidence.
Lewis was tried for corruption in the District
Court under the adversary system in 1991. Judge
Anthony Healy presided. The Crown prudently
retained the leader of the criminal bar, Bob
Mulholland QC, to prosecute. John Jerrard appeared
for Lewis.
Jerrard may have achieved what defence
lawyers fear above all; asking one question too
many. He asked it of Jack Herbert (1924-2004),
Lewis’s bagman. Herbert was born in London;
served in the RAF; joined the Metropolitan Police
(Scotland Yard) in 1946; and migrated to Australia in
1947. He was a uniformed cop until he got into plain
clothes in the Queensland Licensing Branch in 1959,
and was there corrupted. With the mind of a
bookkeeper, Herbert became the bagman for the
Branch’s extortions from illegal liquor sellers (sly-
groggers) and bookmakers.
Lewis had been a bagman for a corrupt
Commissioner (1957-69), Frank Bischof (1904-79). In
1965, Herbert began to pay Lewis a small share of
Licensing Branch bribes. When Herbert apologised
for the paltry sums, Lewis graciously said: ‘Little
fish are sweet.’ In 1976, the Premier, Sir Johannes
Bjelke-Petersen (1911-2005), also an organised
criminal, made Lewis his police chief. In 1980,
Herbert, now out of the force, became Lewis’s
bagman. They used codes to discuss extortees, and
meeting places to share the proceeds. Lewis kept the
codes in notebooks.
199
24 anti-truth devices
200
Our Corrupt Legal System 201
stiffed them and an accountant, John Garde, of
their share of a $25,000 bribe Herbert arranged
for Rooklyn to pay to Lewis.
201
24 anti-truth devices
202
Our Corrupt Legal System 203
have found Lewis guilty without leaving the box.
They did find him guilty, but it took five days. Healy
promptly gave him the max, 14 years. I took the
view that, however inconvenient, it was a good
result for Sir Terence: anyone can get a knighthood,
but Her Majesty soon admitted him to an exclusive
club; he was only the 14th knight to be stripped of his
knighthood since the 14th century.
In 1995, the Australian and NSW Evidence Act(s)
narrowed the probative-prejudicial gap to almost
zero. Section 137 of the NSW version states:
203
24 anti-truth devices
20. Cross-examination
204
Our Corrupt Legal System 205
Cross-examination may help the elucidation of the truth,
but it may also obscure the truth, and quite often is
designed to that end … a clever cross-examiner can make
even the most reliable testimony look questionable, and
can so confuse the context that an understanding of the
answers becomes blurred.
205
24 anti-truth devices
206
Our Corrupt Legal System 207
20 in 100 are reported, four are prosecuted, and one
results in a guilty verdict.
The rates are low partly because brutal and
pornographic cross-examination deters victims from
testifying. Dr Caroline Taylor, author of Court-
Licensed Abuse (Peter Lang, 2004), told The Sydney
Morning Herald’s Edmund Tadros on 9 December
2004:
207
24 anti-truth devices
I know it's part of [the lawyer’s] tactics but you don't need
to keep asking the same question. That's one of the most
confusing parts, where they keep asking the same
question and they're rewording it to try and slip you up.
Dr Taylor said:
208
Our Corrupt Legal System 209
Common lawyers claim they are ethically obliged to
even cross-examine child victims in a brutal and
pornographic way. Four Corners, a programme on a
public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, aired a television programme on sex
crimes against children in 1999. Reporter Peter
George noted a case in which a mother heard her
five-year-old son crying in a lodger’s room. The boy
came out with his shorts in his hand and told her
what happened. She called police and semen was
found in his anal passage. There was a witness, an
immediate complaint, and evidence corroborating
the boy and his mother. The verdict was not guilty.
Four Corners re-enacted the preliminary hearing
of a case in which a Queensland mother said her best
friend’s husband anally penetrated her son, 7.
Russell Clutterbuck cross-examined the boy for five
hours, with breaks to stem the sobbing. Clutterbuck
asked him questions about oral sex:
209
24 anti-truth devices
See, I can stand here all afternoon and ask you all sorts of
questions and until you tell me the truth I won’t stop.
210
Our Corrupt Legal System 211
reported the verdict in The Lawyer Who Laughed
(Century Hutchinson, 1978):
211
24 anti-truth devices
212
Our Corrupt Legal System 213
study confirmed that the formula baffles jurors. The
Commission reported:
213
24 anti-truth devices
Dr Forbes commented:
214
Our Corrupt Legal System 215
to have to give all these warnings and I’m afraid the jury
will heed them. And they often do.
215
24 anti-truth devices
216
Our Corrupt Legal System 217
Although in England the term “beyond reasonable
doubt” is seen to be synonymous with the term ‘sure’ (see
e.g., R v Hepworth and Fearnley [1955] 2 QB 600; R v
Onufrejczyk [1955] 1 QB 388), this is not the case in
Australia (Thomas v R [1960] 102 CLR 584; Dawson v R
[1961] 106 CLR 1; R v Punj [2002] QCA 333).’
217
24 anti-truth devices
218
Our Corrupt Legal System 219
brought. The Bar Council and civil liberties groups
opposed the legislation, but a Home Office
spokesman stated the obvious:
219
24 anti-truth devices
220
Our Corrupt Legal System 221
In 2000, Carroll was charged with perjury on
the ground that he had falsely denied his guilt at the
murder trial. New evidence confirmed that the teeth
marks on Deidre Kennedy were his, and that he had
confessed to the murder. Carroll was found guilty
and sent down for 2 years, but appellate judges
Margaret McMurdo, Catherine Holmes and Glen
Williams invoked double jeopardy to overturn the
verdict: they said Carroll had effectively been tried
twice for the same crime.
In December 2002, High Court judges Murray
Gleeson CJ and Mary Gaudron, Michael McHugh,
Bill Gummow, and Ken Hayne JJ agreed with
McMurdo et al. McHugh huffed that the perjury
prosecution was a ‘vexatious … abuse of process’.
Twenty-four jurors had thus been second-guessed
by 11 appellate judges.
Jurist Brett Dawson commented: ‘How do those
judges sleep at night? The Carroll case is a model for
judicial disintegration of the social fabric.’
It has been reported that Raymond John Carroll
has made a point of appearing at the checkout of an
Ipswich Woolworths store manned by the mother of
the baby bitten, raped and strangled in 1973.
221
Sliding round truth problem
222
Our Corrupt Legal System 223
Judge Richard Posner noted that adversarial
procedures are contests of liars. The addition of a
few words demonstrates the reality of Eldon’s
proposition: ‘Truth is best discovered by trained
liars making powerful statements on both sides of
the question.’
Justice Potter Stewart, speaking for the US
Supreme Court, said in Tehan v Shott (1966): ‘…the
basic purpose of a trial is the determination of truth.’
Law professor John Strait Applegate, then of the
University of Cincinnati College of Law, wrote in
Witness Preparation (Texas Law Review 1989):
223
Sliding round truth problem
224
Our Corrupt Legal System 225
innocent. As Home Secretary in 1953, Fyfe refused to
stop the hanging of an innocent youth, Derek
Bentley, 19 (mental age 11). Fyfe said: ‘There is no
possibility of an innocent man being hanged in
England.’ He was thus eminently qualified to
become Lord Chancellor (and Viscount Kilmuir) in
1954. He wrote in The Migration of the Common Law
(Law Quarterly Report, 1960):
Now the first and most striking feature of the common law is
that it puts justice before truth. The issue in a criminal
prosecution is not, basically, ‘guilty or not guilty?’ but ‘can the
prosecution prove its case according to the rules?’ These rules
are designed to ensure ‘fair play’ at the expense of truth. The
attitude of the common law to a civil action is essentially the
same: the question is ‘has the plaintiff established his claim by
lawful evidence?’ not ‘has he really got a good claim?’ Again,
justice comes before truth.
225
Conviction rates
G. Conviction rates
The words ‘fair trial’ are never far from the lips of
common lawyers and judges, but former prosecutor
William T. Pizzi, now a law professor at the
University of Colorado, said in Trials Without Truth
(New York University Press, 1999):
226
Our Corrupt Legal System 227
known serious criminals get off. Law professor
Michael Zander said in 1989 that since 1979
approximately 50% of all accused were acquitted in
British criminal trials.
In 1997, Dr Lucy Sullivan, of the Sydney Centre
for Independent Studies, noted 1993 figures showing
that the murder conviction rate in NSW was 26.5%.
The rape figure was 11.5%. In 2004, NSW Bureau of
Crime Statistics figures showed that the rate in
sexual assault cases in NSW was 19%.
The conviction rate in India is 16%. The Hindu
reported in September 2003 that Mallikarjun Kharge,
Home Minister for the state of Karnataka, had urged
the Indian Government to change to a truth-seeking
system because the conviction rate in Karnataka was
28% and the national average was 16%. India’s
population in July 2009 was estimated to be 1.17
billion, almost 75% of the total afflicted by the anti-
truth system.
The New South Wales Independent
Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) uses the
investigative system to find the truth about the
corrupt in the public sector, but charges are heard in
the adversary system. In the period 1989-95, 63 of
208 were found guilty, a conviction rate of 30.3%.
Inquests likewise use the investigative system,
but some evidence heard by the coroner will be
concealed either by the DPP or the trial judge.
In 1984, Jennifer Tanner died from two bullets
from a bolt-action rifle that required reloading. The
bullets went through her fingers and into her brain.
Police said it was suicide. In 1998, a Victorian
227
Conviction rates
228
Our Corrupt Legal System 229
presented unnecessary obstacles for the free exercise of
their common sense.
Figures from the NSW District Court show that the jury
convicted in half the cases while the judge, when hearing
a case alone, convicted in only a quarter.
229
Conviction rates
230
Our Corrupt Legal System 231
231
Convicting the innocent
232
Our Corrupt Legal System 233
States with death penalties were considering
moratoriums on executions. On 1 April 2008 there
were 3261 on death row; 130 (4%) were probably
innocent.
Britain. Mike Mansfield QC noted in Presumed
Guilty that studies by English probation officers
found that ‘500 or more’ (at least 1%) prisoners were
wrongly convicted. Timothy Evans was wrongly
hanged for murder in 1950 and pardoned in 1966.
Uproar followed the hangings of Derek Bentley in
1953 and James Hanratty in 1962. England abolished
executions in 1965. That was fortunate for Irish
suspected of terror.
In 1974, detectives tortured the Birmingham Six
to get false confessions to murder. In 1980, Lord
(Alf) Denning (1899-1999, Master of the Rolls 1962-
82) heard the Six’s civil action alleging assault by
police. He said:
If the six men win it will mean that the police were guilty
of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats,
that the confessions were involuntary and were
improperly admitted in evidence and that the convictions
were erroneous ... This is such an appalling vista that
every sensible person in the land would say it cannot be
right that these actions should go any further.
233
Convicting the innocent
234
Our Corrupt Legal System 235
Criminal Appeal (CCA), which adheres to the anti-
truth system. In what may be an example of the
British spirit of compromise, the CCA has agreed
with the CCRC in 70% of cases. To 31 August 2008,
the CCRC had received 11,061 applications and had
referred 395 cases to the appeal court. The court had
quashed the convictions in 260 cases and upheld the
convictions in 110 cases. Some results:
Mahmood Mattan. Hanged 1952. Conviction
quashed 1998 because evidence of main prosecution
witness was unreliable.
Derek Bentley. Hanged 1953. Conviction
quashed because Lord Chief Justice Rayner
Goddard, misdirected the jury. Lord Chief Justice
Bingham said Lord Goddard was ‘blatantly
prejudiced’ and denied Bentley ‘that fair trial that is
the birthright of every British citizen’.
Stephen Downing. Convicted of murder in
1973 and would have been paroled in 1990 if he said
he was guilty. He refused and remained in prison
for 29 years. His conviction was quashed in 2002
after forensic evidence against him was found to be
unreliable.
Patrick Nicholls. Convicted of murder 1975 and
sentenced to life. Conviction quashed because new
evidence showed the ‘victim’ died from natural
causes.
William Gorman and Patrick McKinney.
Convicted of terrorism 1980 and given indefinite
sentences. Convictions quashed 1999 because
Electrostatic Document Analysis (ESDA) of police
235
Convicting the innocent
236
Our Corrupt Legal System 237
Man: ‘One Friday in February 1967 I got a letter from
the man I had seen hanged a week before. A week
later, the hangman sent a carping letter.’
Ryan’s letter, written on 10 feet of lavatory
paper the night before he was hanged, said he was
not guilty of intent. I tend to believe him, and that
life for manslaughter would have been appropriate.
The hangman, a Melbourne chemist, took exception
to my observation that his movements were hurried
and jerky. He wrote: ‘I have carried out executions
throughout Australia and beyond Australia for the
past 38 years, and I have never been told that my
work has been jerky.’
A dingo (a wild dog) kidnapped Mrs Lindy
Chamberlain’s baby daughter, Azaria, from their
tent near Uluru, Central Australia, in 1980, but in
1982 Lindy was found guilty of murdering the baby.
A later inquiry found the truth, and her conviction
was quashed in 1988.
Ian Barker QC prosecuted Mrs Chamberlain. In
1994, as chairman of the NSW Bar Association, he
said my book, Trial by Voodoo, was the silliest book of
the decade. I said he might very well be right, but he
was the wrong person to say it: he was the guy who
got the dingo off.
237
Contempt: guilt presumed
238
Our Corrupt Legal System 239
loss) Gibbs warned him that ‘it was contempt to
refer to a judge in any way other than as Mr Justice
Bloggs’. Turnbull invited Gibbs to grow up.
Contempt by publication offends against the
need for an alleged offender to have a guilty mind,
the presumption of innocence, and trial by jury. It
punishes media organisations which publish, even
inadvertently, material which might be concealed
from jurors.
Christopher Murphy, a Sydney lawyer, was not
aware that a trial was proceeding when he
mentioned the accused’s convictions in a newspaper
article in 1993. The judge aborted the trial; Murphy
and the organ were charged with contempt; three
appellate judges found them guilty in 1994.
Unfortunately, the same man was again on trial;
his convictions were mentioned at the contempt trial
and reported in the Press; his new trial was aborted.
The judges and the media were not charged with
contempt, but in 1995 the judges confirmed the
original guilty verdicts, and ordered the organ to
pay the prosecution costs as well as their own. The
penalty, some A$120,000, was enough to cripple a
small newspaper.
Recent British contempt history shows how
judges can subvert the will of Parliament. In BSC v
Granada (1981), Lord (Cyril) Salmon (1903-91)
adopted a formula developed by the Master of the
Rolls, Lord Denning. Denning said (presumably
before he went ga-ga):
239
Contempt: guilt presumed
240
Our Corrupt Legal System 241
241
Contempt: guilt presumed
242
Our Corrupt Legal System 243
Red Rum allusion, but it sounds like a good thing to
be.’
I told him Red Rum was the world’s greatest
steeplechaser, three times winner of the Grand
National. His third win, in 1977, was one of the great
moments in British sporting history. He said: ‘I'm
honored to be included in Red Rum's company!’
In Professional Detachment, Harvard ethics
professor Arthur Applbaum demolished two of
lawyers’ traditional claims:
243
A criminal enterprise?
K. A criminal enterprise?
244
Our Corrupt Legal System 245
Anything can be rationalised. John Bryson,
barrister and author of Evil Angels, which detailed
the Lindy Chamberlain case, told postgraduate law
students at Melbourne University (When the Rule of
Law Meets the Real World, 2001):
245
Impetus for change
246
Our Corrupt Legal System 247
Harry Whitmore, Professor of Law at the University
of NSW, wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald (6 April
1981):
247
Impetus for change
248
Our Corrupt Legal System 249
By late 2009, however, the Malimath
recommendations were still to be passed into law.
That may be due to rearguard actions by lawyers
and by organisations who wrongly believe that the
adversary system protects the innocent, e.g.
Amnesty International and civil liberties groups. Or
it may be nothing more sinister than that reform in
India proceeds at a measured pace. It took 23 years
for Lord Macaulay’s ‘reforms’ to be put in place.
In 2004, the Australian Family court began to
experiment with a largely lawyer-free investigative
system for custody cases.
The Australian (21 March 2005) reported that
Mick Keelty, the Federal Police Commissioner, and
other experts said a ‘system such as the one used in
France’ would more effectively deal with terror
suspects. Commissioner Keelty had stated the
obvious, but it was not obvious to Australia’s first
law officer Philip Ruddock. He told The Australian he
‘was not currently in favour of a French-style
system’, because ‘that involves a whole lot of
principles that if introduced here would create a
great deal of problems’.
The United Nations set up the International
Association of Prosecutors (IAP) following a sharp
increase in transnational organised crime after the
collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991. The IAP now
represents 128 countries in both systems. The NSW
DPP, Nick Cowdery QC, who is on the IAP’s
Executive Committee, said on 10 October 2008: ‘I’ve
had some discussions about moving towards some
aspects of the inquisitorial system too in the context
249
Impetus for change
250
Our Corrupt Legal System 251
M. Convergence fails
251
Convergence fails
252
Our Corrupt Legal System 253
Independent, 1 August 2008): ‘ … it may be necessary
to abandon the Anglo-American model of
adversarial trial and shift instead to the European
inquisitorial process’. In that process, judges present
only enough evidence to manifest the truth.
The ICTY did not take Robertson’s advice, but
Reed Stevenson, of Reuters, reported on Tuesday, 9
September 2009, that Judge O-Gon Kwon had urged
prosecutors to ‘streamline their case’. Stevenson said
‘prosecutors said last week they would reduce the
number of locations to be mentioned in evidence
and cut their witness list by more than a quarter. But
Kwon on Monday detailed several more areas for
prosecutors to cut’.
Representing himself, Dr Karadzic asked for
another 10 months to prepare. Judge Kwon said he
had had enough time already. Kwon hoped the trial
would start in October 2009 and be over in 2 ½ to
three years, in 2012. In what may have been a useful
piece of greymail, Dr Karadzic asked for documents
from the administration of President Bill Clinton. If
they were not forthcoming, the tribunal might find it
difficult to convict.
The European Union has 25 members. Only
three, the UK, Ireland and Malta, are in the anti-
truth tradition. The Milošević and Karadzic trials
should remind the other 22 countries that
‘convergence’ between the two systems would be
inimical to justice, and would merely divert huge
sums of money to lawyers.
253
The remedy
N. The remedy
254
Our Corrupt Legal System 255
The Sicilian Mafia was virtually the criminal
wing of Giulio Andreotti's Christian Democrat
party. In February 1986, Giovanni Falcone, an
investigating judge, put 475 Mafiosi on trial in
Palermo. At national elections in June 1987, the
Mafia voted for parties other than Andreotti’s on
two conditions: investigating judges were to be
emasculated and the law changed. This punished
Andreotti’s party for failing to stop the investigation
and the maxi-trial and gained more protection for
the Mob.
In December 1987, 344 (72%) of the Mafiosi
were found guilty. In 1988, the pool of Mafia-
investigating judges was dismantled, and the
Parliament passed changes to the criminal code
which limited the powers of remaining investigating
judges. On 20 September 1988, a tap on a telephone
in the Cafe Giardano in Brooklyn recorded a
conversation between a heroin-dealer, Joe Gambino,
and an anonymous hood just back from Palermo.
The dialogue, in Sicilian, indicates that the Mafia
sees the function of the US adversary system as
being to anally penetrate police:
255
The remedy
256
Our Corrupt Legal System 257
dossier. All subsequent evidence-gathering and
submissions go into the dossier. It is continuously
open to inspection by the lawyers.
US trial lawyers coach witnesses relentlessly.
German lawyers rarely speak to witnesses outside
the court. To do so is a serious ethical breach and
self-defeating: judges doubt the reliability of
witnesses who have discussed the case with lawyers
or have been seen consorting with them.
There are no adversary system ‘saxophones’, i.e.
‘expert’ witnesses on whom lawyers who hire them
play tunes. If there is a technical problem, the judge,
in consultation with the lawyers, selects an expert or
experts and defines their role.
The judge sits without a jury and does not
conceal evidence from himself. He, rather than
lawyers, mainly gathers and evaluates evidence over
a series of hearings. There is no distinction between
pre-trial and trial, between discovering evidence and
presenting it. The German approach is called the
‘conference method’; the tone is that of a routine
business meeting. This lessens tension and theatrics
and encourages compromise and settlement. The
fact that the loser pays encourages settlement before
judgment.
The judge may be able to suggest compromise
and resolution in discussions with the lawyers and
their clients. If the parties persist, the judge acts as
examiner-in-chief of the witnesses. Lawyers for
either party can then ask additional questions, but
Professor Langbein says that in Germany ‘counsel
are not prominent as examiners’. He says the judge
257
The remedy
258
Our Corrupt Legal System 259
… evidence is customarily assembled in written form by
one of a court of three judges, and he or she reports to the
court on it. The practice is for the reporting judge to
accept the evidence presented by the parties and to do
little, if any, separate investigation himself. When a
witness is called, he is first examined by the President,
and counsel for the parties may examine later (‘cross-
examination’ is not a term known to continental
jurisprudence.) Few witnesses are called to give oral
evidence. Hearings (the correct term, there being no
‘trials’) are without juries and are not concentrated,
continuous affairs. The first hearing may occupy no more
than one hour, whereupon there can be an adjournment,
so that one party or the other may produce further
evidence, or for a related purpose. The next hearing may
be the final one, and commonly does not last longer than
an hour of so. The point for present purposes is that the
whole case may be disposed of in less than a day overall;
relatively few occupy much more. In other continental
countries, and in Japan, the position is much the same.
This result is greatly helped by the fact that France, in
common with other civil law countries, does not have any
exclusionary rules of evidence.
259
The remedy
260
Our Corrupt Legal System 261
Law professor Gordon van Kessel, of UC
Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco,
observed in Adversary Excesses in the American
Criminal Trial (Notre Dame Law Review, 1992):
261
The remedy
262
Our Corrupt Legal System 263
judges and 12 lay jurors. He wrote of this logical
development:
263
The remedy
264
Our Corrupt Legal System 265
d’accusation. This court then assesses the correctness of the
decision and thus serves as a further filter in the system. It
may order that the case proceed, that it be dropped, that
the charges be re-assessed … This court also sits in appeal
on refusals of pre-trial liberty and on refusals by the
examining magistrate to order investigations into matters
suggested by the defence.
265
The remedy
266
Our Corrupt Legal System 267
and a 75-day re-trial over 11 months (guilty). He was
fined $100,000 and sent to prison for 2 ½ years.
Elisabeth Sexton reported in The Sydney Morning
Herald (20 November 2002) that Hannes had spent
$3.1 million on legal costs which sometimes reached
$13,000 a day. His various court outings cost
taxpayers at least $2 million.
Bron McKillop, author of Anatomy of a French
Murder Case (Hawkins, 1997), lectures each year in
France and Germany. Given that Hannes’ trials took
130 days, I asked him how the French system would
have dealt with Hannes. He replied:
267
The remedy
268
Our Corrupt Legal System 269
system alters individuals’ behaviour. One of the primary
factors determining economic growth is technological
innovation. To the degree that technological innovation is
inhibited by the tort system … economic growth suffers.
Stephen Magee, professor of finance at the University of
Texas at Austin, estimates that the excess supply of
lawyers in the USA reduces economic output by [US]$300
billion to [US]$600 billion.
269
The remedy
270
Our Corrupt Legal System 271
are still only 0.2% of the voters, and the public are
still 99.8%.
271
Definitions
Definitions
272
Our Corrupt Legal System 273
Common law. Judge-made law used in England and
its former colonies, including the USA, Canada,
India, New Zealand and Australia.
Conversion rate. Historian Roy Porter said that
multiplying 18th century English pounds by 100
gives a rough equivalent of their value today.
Criminal enterprise. The vehicle through which
organised crimes are committed.
Dickens Principle. ‘The one great principle of the
English law is to make business for itself’, i.e. trial
lawyers.
Ethics. ‘A system of moral principles, by which
human actions and proposals may be judged good
or bad or right or wrong.’ – Macquarie Dictionary. In
the adversary system, legal ethics are client-based
rather than morality-based.
Investigative System. A truth-seeking system in
which trained judges control the court and the
process. Used by civil law countries since early in
the 13th century.
Justice. This book accepts former Justice Russell
Fox’s definition: justice means fairness, fairness
means truth, truth means reality, and the search for
truth gives a justice system its moral face.
Kleptocracy. Rule by thieves.
Law Lords. Lords of Appeal in Ordinary; life peers
who were members of England’s highest appeal
court, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.
Legal Fiction. A convenient lie. Australia was
deemed to be uninhabited when British took control
in 1788.
273
Definitions
274
Our Corrupt Legal System 275
Rule of Law. A legal fiction. It holds that all persons
and organisations, including governments, are
subject to the same laws.
Saxophones. Expert witnesses on whom lawyers
play tunes.
Trial/Litigation/Plaintiff Lawyers. Lawyers who do
court work, some 40% of the total, i.e. most
barristers and about 30% of solicitors. In this book
‘lawyers’ usually refers to trial lawyers.
275
Bibliography
Acknowledgments
276
Our Corrupt Legal System 277
Bibliography
277
Bibliography
278
Our Corrupt Legal System 279
Landsman, Stephan, Readings on Adversarial Justice:
The American Approach to Adjudication, St Paul: West
Publishing Co. 1988.
Langbein, John H., The German Advantage in Civil
Procedure, University of Chicago Law Review, Fall 1985.
Langbein, John H., The Historical Origins of the
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination at Common Law,
Michigan Law Review, March 1994.
Langbein, John H. Historical Foundations of the Law of
Evidence: A View from the Ryder Sources, New York:
Columbia Law Review, June 1996.
Langbein, John H. The Origins of Adversary Criminal
Trial, OUP 2004:
Leigh, Leonard and Zedner, Lucia, A Report on the
Administration of Criminal Justice in the Pre-Trial phase
in France and Germany, Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, 1992.
Luban, David, Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study,
Princeton UP, 1988
Luban, David Twenty Theses on Adversarial Ethics,
conference, Beyond the Adversarial System, Brisbane,
July 1997.
McCoy, Alfred, Drug Traffic: Narcotics and Organized
Crime in Australia, Sydney: Harper & Row, 1980.
McKillop, Bron, Inquisitorial Systems of Criminal
Justice and the ICAC: a Comparison, Sydney: ICAC,
1994.
McKillop, Bron, Anatomy of a French Murder Case,
Sydney: Hawkins Press. 1997
Mansfield QC, Michael, Presumed Guilty - The British
Legal System Exposed, London: Heinemann, 1993
279
Bibliography
280
Our Corrupt Legal System 281
Sifakis, Carl, The Mafia Encyclopedia: From Accardo to
Zwillman, second edition, New York: Checkmark,
1999.
Stille, Alexander, Excellent Cadavers: The Mafia and the
Death of the First Italian Republic, New York:
Pantheon, 1995.
Stone, Julius and W.A.N.Wells, Evidence - Its History
and Policies, Sydney: Butterworths, 1991.
Strier, Franklin, Reconstructing Justice: An Agenda for
Trial Reform, University of Press, 1994.
Taylor, S. Caroline, Court-Licensed Abuse, New York,
Peter Lang, 2004.
Toobin, Jeffrey, The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J.
Simpson, New York: Touchstone 1997
Whitton, Evan, Trial by Voodoo: Why the Law Defeats
Truth and Democracy, Sydney: Random House, 1994.
Whitton, Evan, The Cartel: Lawyers and Their Nine
Magic Tricks, Sydney, Herwick, 1998.
Whitton, Evan, Serial Liars: How Lawyers Get the
Money, Lulu, 2005
Williams, Francis, Dangerous Estate: The Anatomy of
Newspapers (Longmans Green,1957).
Zuckerman, A.A.S., The Principles of Criminal
Evidence, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
281
Index
Index
Abramson, Jeffrey, 101, Addison, Joseph, 129
276 Adelaide, 8, 10
Abramson, Leslie, 170 Adler, Stephen, 102
Abridgment of Law and Adversary excesses in the
Equity, 56 American criminal trial,
abstraction, high order, 260
38 adversary system, 26, 43,
academics, 5, 44, 255, 269 46, 50, 58, 85, 87, 96,
sounding brass, 58 102, 109, 111, 153, 163,
accessories, 157 178, 199, 211, 226, 230,
accusatorial system, 13, 240, 241, 245, 248, 251,
14, 163, 271 253, 255, 256, 257, 262,
adversary system a 267
variation of, 14 abuse of process, 271
and Judgment of God, accusatorial system
25 and, 14
anti truth, 13 anally penetrates
defined, 271 police, 254
England persists with, Applegate on, 222
36 arguments for, 240
product of Dark Ages, begins, 44
163 best system, 243
profitable, 36 best way of finding
accusatorial system, 156 truth, 221
Ackland, Richard, 275 Burger on, 246
Act of Settlement, 91 can conceal all
actus reus, 176 evidence, 163
actus reus (wrongful act), civil system defended,
243 153
Adams, G. Dennis, 79 conviction rates, 225
Adams, John, 74 criminal enterprise?,
Adams, John Bodkin, 243
135
282
Our Corrupt Legal System 283
criminal system rapes body politic, 195
defended, 240 reasons to retain, 241
essential mainstay, resolves disputes, 154
162 rigged, 102
essential pillar of saxophones, 256
British justice, 116 serial rapists, 205
ethics, 272 Spigelman on, 222
game, a, 101 syllogism, 96
Hannes case in two theory of the case, 168
systems, 265 tobacco wheeze, 150
Katz on, 246 true facts, 20
keeping faith with tyranny of, 240
clients, 95 win-at-all-costs
length of trials, 264 culture, 103
Lewis trial, 198 Advocates, 23, 279
Macaulay’s version Agobard, 26
for India, 247 Ahern, John, 144, 276
moral centre, no, 71 Alabama, 98, 150
morality of, 96 alcohol, 86
Mortimer on, 19 Alice’s Adventures in
O.J. Simpson on, 100 Wonderland, 20
obliges lawyers to Allison, Bill, 146
deny facts known Alschuler, Albert, 161
to be true, 102 Amazing Scenes, ii, 235
past sell-by date, 116 Amendment, First, 131,
philosophy of cruelty, 137
93 Amnesty International,
pleadings vehicle for 112, 248
invention of, 117 Amuso, Vittorio, 189
pragmatic argument Anatomy of a French
for, 241 Murder Case, 266, 278
prevents reform of Anatomy of a Murder, 100
pleadings, 118 Andover, family, 60
protects against Andreotti, Giulio, 254
oppression, 240
283
Index
284
Our Corrupt Legal System 285
Banzhaf, John, 59, 99 fraud on taxpayers,
Bar Association 144
American, 78, 86, 100, profit is loss, 144
150, 154, 189, 246 self-deception, 143
International, 264 tax evasion, 105
NSW, 206 tax lawyer, 140
WA, 118 truculent runt, 143
Bar Council BCCI v Bank of England
England, 218 (2005-), 258
India, 247 Beam, Alex, 98
Barker, Ian, 236 Beaton Consulting, 86
Barons’ War, 40 Beattie, John, 52, 211
Barton Hypothesis, 105, Beauchamp, Earl, 61, 62
116 Beccaria, Cesare, 62
brazen example, 107 Becket, Thomas a, 217
in a nutshell, 98 Beggars’ Opera, 54
Barton, Benjamin, 105, Belloc, Hilaire, 61
107, 179, 190, 275 Bentham, Jeremy, 51, 57,
Lawyer-Judge Bias, The, 84, 161, 180
269 Bentley, Derek, 232, 234
lawyers should not be Berd v Lovelace (1577),
judges, 268 179
puts the cartel Berlin, Isaiah, 71
question, 97 Bessell, Peter, 112, 113
Barwick, 279 Best Defense, The, 15, 91,
Barwick, Garfield, 81, 106, 276
140, 143, 144, 279 Bevan, Aneurin, 135
absolutely does not beyond reasonable
mean absolutely, doubt, 211, 212, 214,
142 261, 265
accused of crime, 81 Beyond the Adversarial
black is white, 142 System:, 154
Casuarina wholly Bharucha, Sam, 81
artifical, 144 bias, 2, 16, 154
frankly criminal, 144
285
Index
286
Our Corrupt Legal System 287
his reform committee, bribes, 27, 28, 29, 42, 46,
66 54, 56, 77, 79, 80, 81,
loses first Battle of 129, 189, 197, 198, 201,
Marengo, 63 271
no reform without bribes, euphemisms for,
Desaix, Marmont, 28
Kellerman, 65 Brickman, Lester, 87
reads law books, 66 Brideshead Revisited, 62
rumours of his death Bridge, Nigel Cyprian
at Marengo, 64 tells jury to convict
Book of Martyrs, 47 Birmingham Six,
Booth, M, 265, 266 112
Boothby, Lord (Robert), Brinkelow, Henry, 84
135 Britain
Borsellino, Paolo, 255 as corrupt as
Boulton, Brian, 197 European
Bramwell, George, 107 countries, 28
Breaking the Deadlock, 33 British Empire begins
breast implants, 149 1072, 28
Brecht, Bertolt, 54 British justice, 111
Brennan vs. Rehnquist, Brougham, Henry, 91
277 blackmails George IV,
Brennan, Sir Gerard, 18, 91
183, 218, 231, 277 client-lawyer secrecy,
Brennan, William, 132, 180
230 sacred duty, 90
Breslin, Jimmy, 76 Brunei, 105
Brethren, The, 104 Brydges, James, 53
Brett, William, 2 Bryson, John, 244
Brett, William Baliol, 105 BSC v Granada, 238
expands discovery, Buckingham, Duke of,
119 38
bribe, 76, 200 Buckley, Rhonda, 202
bribery, 41, 74, 75, 76, 78, Bull, papal, 33
89 Buller, Francis, 2, 180
287
Index
288
Our Corrupt Legal System 289
lawyers used as Chamberlain, Lindy, 7,
bagmen, 31 236, 244
origin of, 1 Chambers Biographical
Posner on, 14 Dictionary, 75
rejects investigative Chancellor, 13, 28, 41, 46,
system, 36 52, 54, 55, 59, 80, 84,
rejects truth, 1 108, 117, 180, 186, 224,
seeks money and 273
social status, 30 politician/judge, 48
Cartel, The, ii, 19, 280 Chancery, 29
Carter (1995), 182 Chancery Court, 1, 2, 48,
Carter, Louis James, 182, 49, 50, 56, 59, 84, 117
183 Charles I, 45
Carter-Ruck, 181 Cheating of America, The,
Case Against Lawyers, 146
The, 151, 276 Chelmsford, Lord, 108
Case of the Queenly Chelmsford, Lord (b.
Contestant, The, 205 Frederick Thesiger),
casinos, appellate courts 108
as, 110 Cheney, Richard, 74, 107
Casuarina, 144 Chicago (film), 23
cornerstone of tax Chicago Tribune, 230
industry, 144 Christian Democrat
Caulfield, Bernard, 113 party, 254
Caxton, William, 128 Christie discretion, 196,
CDNB, 4, 38, 46, 89 199
Celestine III, Pope, 32 Chrysostom, St John, 47,
Center for Public 159
Integrity, 146 Cicero, 83
Central Intelligence Cinque, Joe, 178
Agency, 38 Civil Justice System, The,
Chamber of Commerce, 279
Australian, 111 civil litigation, 51, 255,
Chamberlain, Azaria, 257, 259, 273
236 Clarendon, Assize of, 29
289
Index
290
Our Corrupt Legal System 291
not interested in Connecticut, 97
personal Conqueror, William the,
responsibility, 126 26, 273
onus on libel Conseil d'Etat, 66
defendants, 132 consent defence, 95
origin, 29 Constantinople, 159
prefers rights to Constitution (U.S.), 73,
justice, 37 75
pusts justice before Constitutional History of
truth, 224 England, 59
reasonable doubt, 216 contempt, 36, 106, 237,
remedy, 17 238, 239, 240, 271
rights, 128 Contempt of Court Act
Serjeants’ monopolies, (1981), 239
42 context, 6, 185, 204, 248,
Spigelman on, 222 273
unpredictable, 110 convergence, 250, 252
Why is the House of Milošević farce, 250
Lords?, 110 Convicted But Innocent,
wrong acquittals 230
never wrong, 195 conviction intime, 211, 261
Common Pleas, Court Cook County, 27, 77
of, 30, 38, 42, 50 Cook, Peter, 112
Commons, House of, 40 Coolidge v New Hampshire
compurgators, 25 (1971), 194
Concise Book of Lying, 23 Coolidge, Edward, 194
Concise History of the Cooper, Claire, 103
Common Law, A, 30, Cooper, Marc, 164
57, 129, 279 Cooperman, Arthur, 164
Condon, Richard, 27 Copenhagen, Battle of,
Confessions of a Defense 108
Attorney, 84 Corallo, Anthony (Tony
Confessions of Artemus Ducks), 189
Quibble 77, 100 Corby, Schapelle, 169
Confucius, 154 Corleone, Vito, 84, 105
291
Index
292
Our Corrupt Legal System 293
lawyers’ self- Dershowitz, Alan, 91,
deception, 245 106, 157, 225, 264, 276
neither truth nor almost all accused
fairness, 21 guilty, 156
Davies, Lisa, 205 judges lie, 15
Dawson, Brett, 107, 123, lying endemic, 106
126, 139, 220, 275, 276 Desaix, Louis, 63, 64, 65
de Hengham, Ralph, 41 destroying (a witness),
De Laudibus Legum 93
Angliae, 47 Dick the Butcher, 43
de Montfort, Simon, 40 Dickens Principle, 98,
De Republica Anglorum, 272
203 Dickens, Charles, 31, 49,
Deane, William, 183 60, 150, 272
Death Row, 3, 230, 231 discovery, 105, 119, 120,
deceive, sacred duty to, 121, 122, 257, 275
88 14 years, 121
Defending White-Collar accounts for 60% of
Crime, 92 time and money,
Defense of the Adversarial 120
Process, 154 blackmail, 121
Defoe, 129 Brett makes open-
deity, 25, 26, 36, 69, 237 ended, 2
Delicate Balance: The Place delays trial for nine
of Individual's Rights in years, 259
Corruption excludes poor and
Investigations, A, 279 middling, 259
demeanour, 164 extortion, 121
Denning, Lord, 232, 238 guano case, 119
innocent should stay interminable, 240
in gaol, 232 rare in investigative
Denton, Andrew, 94 system, 255
DePaul University, 154 Sackville on, 122
depression, lawyers', 86 Santossed, 121
Dering, John, 48 vast sums, 119
293
Index
294
Our Corrupt Legal System 295
Enlightenment, Ethics for Adversaries, 85
European, 62 Ethics of Advocacy, The,
Enterprise, criminal, 56, 23
243, 244, 272 ethics,
British, 28 lying to judges, 93
Chancery Court as, 48 ethnocentrism, 36
defined, 27 European law, origin, 34
Entirely a Matter for You, Evans, Timothy, 232
112 Evelyn, John, 52
ESDA (Electrostatic Evidence Acts, 202
Document Analysis), Evidence in Queensland,
234 196, 277
Essay on Crimes and Evidence Law in
Punishments, An, 62 Queensland, 213, 219
ethicists, 241 evidence, circumstantial,
ethics, iv, 39, 70, 85, 102, 39
179, 240, 242, 275, 278 Evidence: Its History and
based on fallacy, 96 Policies, 183, 196
defined, 272 Evil Angels, 244
encourage dishonesty, Evil Deeds of the Ratbag
87 Profession, The, 275
English county, 87 Ewald, George, 77
ghastly hypothetical, Excellent Cadavers, 253
92 Excellent Cadavers, 280
immune from execution, 87, 231, 232
conscience, 87 expert witnesses, 6
just doing job, 95 expert) witness, 7
lawyers’ financial extortion, trickle-down,
interest, 87 27, 28, 32, 40, 54
Littlemore on, 94 extortions, euphemisms
self-contradictory, 88 for, 28
synonymous with eyre, 29
morals, 87 eyre, extortions, 29
whatever it takes, 167
wicked uncle, 89
295
Index
296
Our Corrupt Legal System 297
defines justice, 272 Freedom for the Thought
defines truth, 18 that We Hate, 132
demolishes Atkin, 124 Freeman, George, 82
demolishes Kilmuir, freemen, 28, 33
224 Frega, Patrick, 79
English law benefits freie uberzeugung, 261
wealthy, 141 Funding Evil, 138
excessive litigation Furman v Georgia (1972),
affects economic 231
growth, 267 Gambat, 78
French pre-trial costs, Gambino family, 189
257 Gambino, Joe, 254
judges kept ignorant, gambling, lawyers’, 86
115 game, law as, 6, 101, 102,
justice marches with 156, 161
the truth, 19, 267 Garde, John, 200
lawyers don’t present Gardner, Erle Stanley,
true facts, 20 35, 205
negligence law, 127 Garner, Helen, 178
pre-trial costs, 257 Gaudron, Mary, 183, 220
public knows justice Gay, John, 54
means truth, 266 Geneva Conventions,
Foxe, John, 47 251
Frederick II, 32, 34 Genovese family, 188,
Frederick the Great, 62 189
Free Press 108, 135 George III, 61
Free Speech Protection George IV, 91, 180
Act, 138 George, Peter, 208
Freedman, Monroe, 92, Georgia, 74, 75, 231
95, 221 Gere, Richard, 23
ethics in rape cases, 93 German Advantage in
ethics of lying to Civil Procedure, The,
judges, 93 255
three hardest Gibbs, Harry, 144, 161,
questions, 92 238
297
Index
298
Our Corrupt Legal System 299
Hanratty, James, 232 Hirsch, Alan, 69
Hanson, Frederick, 136 Historical Foundations of
Happy Feet, i the Law of Evidence, 278
Harlin, John Marshall, Historical Origins of the
104 Privilege Against Self-
Harold, King, 27 Incrimination, 174, 211,
Harris, Fred, 148 278
Harris, Joanne, 202 History of Jonathan
Harris, Louis, 120 Wild the Great, The,
Hart, H.L.A, 69, 71 54
cuckolded, 71 Hitler, Adolf, 141
Hastings, Battle of, 27 Hocking, Jenny, 143
Hatton, John, 136 Holdsworth, Sir
Hauptmann, Bruno, 230 William, 38
Hayden, Dyson, 109 Holdsworth, William, 44
Hayes, Peter, 118 Holmes, Catherine, 220
Hayne, Ken, 220 Holmes, Oliver Wendell
Hayne, Kenneth, 109 Jr, 69, 70, 71, 101
Healy, Anthony, 198 eliminates moral, 70
Heerey, Peter, 121 limpet, 70
Helman, John, 197 no backbone, 70
Helmholz, Richard, 161 Holt, Harold, 143
Henry II, 29, 30, 217 Holt, John, 130
Henry III, 35 Holy Roman Empire, 34
Henry VI, 46 Honours (Prevention of
Henry VI Part II, 43 Abuses) Act, 80
Henry VII, 46 Hooper, David, 134, 277
Henry VIII, 47 Hoover, J. Edgar, 77, 82
Herbert, A. P., 111 Houseman, John, 70
Herbert, Jack, 199, 200 Houston Chronicle, The,
herpetoids, 101 151
Herschell, Farrer, 2, 186 Howard, John, 145
Hillbilly Dictator, The, ii Howard, John (Jackie the
Hindu, The, 226 Lackey), 145
Hines, Jimmy, 76 Howard, Philip, K., 115
299
Index
300
Our Corrupt Legal System 301
Internal Revenue recommendation that
Service, 146 India change to, 226
International Criminal reformed by
Tribunal for former Bonaparte, 64
Yugoslavia, 250 searches for truth, 18
intra-uterine devices, some US colonists
149 favour changing to,
Introduction to English 58
Legal History, An, 29, trials less costly, 264
30, 276 used at inquests, 226
Investigating Judge in the used by ICAC, 226
Civil Law System, The, used in Australian
276 Family Court, 248
investigative system, iv, used in inquiries, 267
31, 62, 201, 241, 250 used in Queensland
accuracy, cost, 262 corruption inquiry,
and standard of proof, 197
261 Ipp, David, 120, 126, 277
cartel rejects, 36 Isaacs, Godfrey, 80
convicts twice as Isaacs, Rufus. See
many at half the Reading, Lord, See
cost, 264 Reading, Lord
Hannes comparison Isnora, Gescard, 164
with adversary Italy, 62, 64, 135, 253, 254
system, 266 Ito, Lance, 184
hearsay weighed, 183 Jackson, Richard, 32, 36,
Lateran Council 277
confirms, 34 Jacob, Edward, 117
needs six times as Jacobs, Dennis, 97, 269,
many judges, 267 275
no jurors, 39 Jamail, Joe, 151
no preliminary James II, 52
hearings, 175 James, David Ryan, 235
not perfect, 253 James, William, 117
odious features, 38 Japan, 114, 258, 271
301
Index
302
Our Corrupt Legal System 303
King of Hearts, 20 plea-bargaining, 174
King’s Bench (criminal reasonable doubt, 211
trials), 41, 43, 237 saxophones, 274
Kingdom of Id, 98 self-incrimination, 160
Kingsfield, Charles, 70 torture useless, 39
Kirby, Michael, 8, 109, Langdell, Christopher
179, 277 Columbus, 69, 71, 203
Kitto, Francis, 142 larceny by trick, 140
Kneipp, George, 219 Lateran Council, 1, 34
Knight-Bruce, James, 180 Lateran,Council, 34
Koch, Tony, 165 Latham, Lord, 89
KPN, 265 Latham, Megan, 176
Kramer, Marc, 22 Latham. Lord, 89, 90, 176
Kray, Ronald, 135 Law Institute of Victoria,
Kwon, O-Gon, 251, 252 118
l Law schools, 56 Law Reform
Lackey, Henry, 152 Commissions
Laddie, Hugh NZ, 211
sell by, 116 WA, 44, 117, 118, 121
unthinkable, 116 law schools, 10, 42, 56,
Lamb v Munster, 161 68, 69, 70, 243, 269
Lancaster, House of, 46 Law The Art of Justice, 276
Lancman, Rory, 138 LawCover, 86
Landsman, Stephan, 51, Laws, John, 214
153, 154, 240, 278 Lawyer Who Laughed, The,
Langbein, John, 161, 257, 210
278 Lawyers and Justice, 87,
civil trial origins, 43 168, 221, 278
cross-exmination, 203 Lawyers and Justice: An
ethnocentrism, 47 Ethical Study, 278
German civil Lawyers Weekly, 100
procedure, 255 Lawyers’ Ethics in an
German cross- Adversary System, 92
examination, 256 Legal 100, 35, 71, 72, 74,
invalid verdits, 209 83, 131
303
Index
304
Our Corrupt Legal System 305
London Review of Books, Machinery of Justice in
184 England, The, 36, 277
London School of MacKeith, James, 233
Economics, 28, 30 Mackenzie v Miller
Long Goodbye, The, 179 Brewing (1997), 140
Lords, House of, 27, 90, MacNamara, Barry, 199,
91, 110, 272 200
Lovell, Samuel, 167 Macquarie, 4, 265, 272
Luban, David, 92, 96, Macquarie Bank, 265
275, 278 Macrery, Judge), 76
arguments for system Madison, James, 58, 59,
fail, 240 73, 75, 131, 160
his argument fails, 241 Madoff, Bernie, 22
marionettes, 154 Madresfield, 60, 61, 62
on Eldon, 221 Madresfield: The Real
on ethics, 87 Brideshead, 60
on Freedman, 92, 95 Mafia, 3, 76, 77, 78, 100,
on morality, 95 145, 188, 189, 253, 254,
on theory of case, 168 273, 280
Red Rum, 241 Mafia Encyclopedia, 77
system grotesque, 253 Mafia Encyclopedia: From
wicked uncle, 89 Accardo to Zwillman,
Lucchese family, 189 The, 280
Luckhoo, Lionel, 225 Mafia, Sicilian, 254
Luellin, John, 48 Mafiosi, 254
Lundy, Lord, 61 Magee, Stephen, 268
Lygon, family, 60, 61 Magna Carta, 1, 33
M’Naghten (1843), 176 magnates, 27, 33, 40, 128
Maat, 1, 11, 18 Maguire, John, 176
Macclesfield, Lord, 49, Mahfouz, Khalid bin,
54, 55 137, 138
Macdonell. A.G., 63, 64 Mailer, Norman, 102
Macdonnel, Rick, 160 Maitland, Frederick, 44
Machinery of Justice, 32 Major, John, 113
305
Index
306
Our Corrupt Legal System 307
Mendelow, Paul, 121, moral system, 19, 23, 71,
275 72, 85, 95, 96, 101, 178,
Menendez, Lyle and 246, 262, 266, 272
Erik, 170 Morales, Dan, 151, 152
mens rea, 176 morality, 18, 19, 35, 68,
mens rea (wrongful 71, 96, 272
intent), 243 Morling, Trevor, 123
Menzies, Douglas, 144 Morosi, Juni, 135
Menzies, Robert, 143, morsel, cursed, 25
144 Mortimer, John, 19, 26,
Michigan Law Review, 92, 35
174, 221, 278 Moscone, George, 177
Middle Ages, 25, 40, 43 Mouthpiece, The, 83
Mikhail, Charles, 153 Mr X, 265
Milat, Ivan, 94, 95 Mulholland, Bob, 198
Milk, Harvey, 177 Mullany, Nicholas, 44,
Miller, George, i 117, 118, 275
Millhouse, Robin, 213 Mulvagh, Jane, 60
Mills, Steve, 230 Murdoch, Rupert, 235
Milošević, Slobodan, Murphy, Lionel, 81, 136,
250, 251 162
Miranda v Arizona, 162 Murr, Marc, 152
miscarriages, 5, 6, 7, 10, Musgrave, Jane, 125
230, 263 Mustill, Justice, 233
Mob, the, 27, 77, 185, Myth of Moral Justic,
188, 189, 191 279
Modern Legal Ethics, 88 Myth of Moral Justice,
Moglen, Eben, 161 71
Moles, Bob, 10 Nader, Ralph, 147, 148
Moley, Raymond, 27 Nadruku, Noa, 171
Moore, Beverley C., 148 Napoleon and His
Moore, Mike, 150 Marshals, 63
Moral Labyrinth of Napoleonic Codes, 67,
Zealous Advocacy, 85, 68
93 Nation, The, 103
307
Index
308
Our Corrupt Legal System 309
Oxford Dictionary of Personal Responsibility in
American Legal Australian Society and
Quotations, 171, 205, Law:, 126
227 pervert justice, sacred
Oxford History of duty to, 88
Britain vol II, 28 Petley, Julian, 135
OxfordLQ, 4, 171 Pettifogger, Larsen E., 98
OxfordSC, 4, 68, 74, 75 Philadelphia Bulletin, The,
Palm Beach Post, The, 125 22
Pannick, David, 23, 167, Philip II, 34
279 Philip Morris, 126
Paper Chase, The, 70 Philip of Spain, 47
Parke, Baron, 166 Phillips, Morgan, 135
Parliament pinko lezzo, 210
as criminal enterprise, Pitt, William (the
130 Younger), 129
parol evidence, 37 Pizzi, William, 225, 279
parrot, sodomised, 103, Plato, 23
104, 203 plead, refusal to results
Paterson, David, 138 in torture, 38
Path of the Law, 70 pleadings, 43, 44, 45, 117,
Patterson, Alan, 110 257, 275
Peacock, Barnes, 247 ‘big heap of crap’, 118
Pearse v Pearse, 180 adversary system
Pearson v Chung, 115 begins with, 44
Pearson, Roy, 115, 116 also ran, 117
Penguin Encyclopedia of exclude poor and
Crime, The, 186, 276 middling, 259
Pepys, Samuel, 48 first written pleading
perjury, 92, 103, 114, 220, 1460, 45
232 interminable, 117, 240
Perjury Routine, The, 103 judges can reform, 119
Persico, Carmine (The lack of truth, 45
Snake), 189 largely useless, 117
lawyers lie in, 117
309
Index
310
Our Corrupt Legal System 311
self-incrimination, 47, Rabbit, White, 20
159, 160, 161, 162, rape, date, 186
165, 180, 223, 244, Rapke, Jeremy, 249
247 Rationality and Power
Professional Detachment, Democracy in Practice,
85 243, 277
Professionalism and Rattner, Ayre, 230
Accountability of Reading, Lord, 2, 80, 196
Lawyers, 87 Readings on Adversarial
Professors of the Law, 49 Justice, 154, 240, 278
Prohibition Against Reality of Civil Justice
Adverse Inferences from Reform, 245
Silence, The, 163 Reconstructing Justice, 91
Proof of Guilt: A Study of Red Rum, 241
the English Criminal redescription, strategy
Trial, 161 of, 28
proof, standard of, 39 Reformation, British, 47
Prosecutors, Reforming the Civil
International Litigation System, 102
Association of, 248 Reforms to the Adversarial
Protagoras, 69 Proces, 120
Prove it! system, 163 Reforms to the Adversarial
Providence Journal, The, Process, 277
39 Rehnquist, William
Prussia, 62 Hubbs, 105, 231, 277
psychopathy, 87 Reid, Lord (James), 110
PTSD, Post Traumatic Report on the
Stress Disorder, 170 Administration of
Queen Caroline, 91 Criminal Justice in the
Quin, Lamar, 84 Pre-Trial phase in
R v Almon (1765), 237 France and Germany,
R v Hall (1887), 20 263, 278
R v Hall (1952), 166 Reputations Under Fire:
R v Sang (1980), 196 Winners and Losers in
R v Sims (1946), 165 the Libel lBusiness, 277
311
Index
312
Our Corrupt Legal System 313
Salmon, Lord, 238 Serjeants, 1, 42, 43, 52, 55
Samuel, Herbert, 80 Shakedown, 151
Santa Clara law school, Shakespeare, 43
169 Shapiro, Fred, 171
Santos, 121 shark, 59, 60, 100, 101
saxophones, 256, 274 Shaw, Jonathan, 103
Scalia, Antonin, 105 Sheddon v Goodric, 166
Scandalum Magnatum, 40, Shepherdson, Tom, 219
41, 51, 128 Sherman Act, 70
Scandinavia, 32 Sicily, 32, 83
Scanlon, Peter, 194 SideWiki, 182
schizophrenia, lawyers', Siegel, Joel, 12, 24
88 Sifakis, Carl, 77, 78, 280
Schwartz, Murray, 87, 96 Silius, Gaius, 83
scientific evidence, 7 Sim v Stretch (1936), 133
Scott, Norman, 112 Similar Facts, 20, 186, 277
Scruggs, Dickie, 150, 151 Simmonds, Ralph, 118
scutage, 33 Simonie, The, 41
search for truth, 20, 71, simony, 32
247, 272 Simpson, Lyle, 202
SEC (US Securities and Simpson, Nicole, 168,
Exchange 184
Commission), 22 Simpson, O. J., 100, 162
Secret Life of Judges, 97 Simpson, O.J., 168, 169,
seditious libel, 130 184, 209, 280
Sedley, Stephen, 184 Singh, Anu, 178
Segni, Cardinal, 31 Siregar, Erwin, 169
invents investigative SLAPP suits, 135
procedure, 32 sluts and nuts, 206
Seinfeld, 139 Smith, Adam, 30, 141,
Selborne, Lord, 117 187
self-regulation, 25 Smith, Henry, 161
Selvey v DPP (1970), 196 Smith, Thomas, 47, 203
serial liars, 85, 241, 275 Smith, William
Serial Liars, i, ii, 17, 280 Kennedy, 186
313
Index
314
Our Corrupt Legal System 315
Tampoe, Robin, 169, 170 Thinking up about the
Tanner, Denis, 227 Right of Silence and
Tarbell, Ida, 76 Unsworn Statements,
Tarlton Law Library, 83 32, 160, 279
Tate, Sharon, 137 Third Man, The, 236
Tax Act 1936 (Australia), Thomas Nationwide
144, 145 Transport, 265
tax evasion, 17, 140, 268 Thomas, Clarrie, 105
BCCI involved in, 258 Thomas, James, 46, 47,
judges encourage, 105 54, 55
judges lie, 143 Thornton, Abraham, 26
Magna Carta, 33 Thorpe, Jeremy, 112
Swiss banks admit Three Hardest Questions,
criminality, 146 92
Taxing Time, A, 144 Threepenny Opera, The, 54
taxpayers, 122, 144, 150, Through the Looking
164, 195, 266, 267 Glass, 104
Taylor, Alan, 142 Tieri, Frank (Funzi), 189
Taylor, Shannon, 206 Time, 231
Taylor, Shannon Tisdall (1983), 239
Caroline, 207, 209, 280 To Kill A Mockingbird,
Tehan v Shott (1966), 222 204
Tennessee, University tobacco, 98, 124, 149,
College of Law, 97 150, 151, 152, 153
terrorism, 38, 134, 137, Tobacco-Medicaid, 150
234, 258 Tomalin, Claire, 48
Texas, University of, 83 Too Good to Be True, 22
Thankerton, Lord Toobin, Jeffrey, 168, 169,
knitter, 104 280
Thatchist regime, 239 Toohey, Brian, 145
theft by extortion torture, 1, 36, 38, 39, 47,
(blackmail), 91, 139 62, 174, 253
Thibaudeau, Antoine torture abolished, 62
Clair, 66 torture, judicial, 38
Thiess, Leslie, 136 Torture, judicial, 1, 2, 37
315
Index
316
Our Corrupt Legal System 317
Texas at Austin, 268 waterboarding, 38
Toronto, 52 Waterloo, 67
UCLA, 223 Watson, William, 107
West Virginia, 85 Watterson, Ray, 133, 276
Yale, 43, 67, 160, 211 Watts, Mango, 103
University College, 116 Waugh, Evelyn, 61, 62
University of Chicago Law We, the Jury, 101
Review, 278 Wealth of Nations, The, 30
Valachi, Joseph, 188 Webb, William, 142
Valery, Paul, 68 Weber, Max, 98
van Kessel, Gordon, 260 Weill, Kurt, 54
Vanity Fair, 137, 159 Weissensteiner, 163
Vasta, Angelo, 219 Wells, W.A.N., 183, 196,
Verdicts on Lawyers, 148 227, 228, 280
Vermont, 97 West Europe, 13
Verres, Gaius, 83 Westminster Hall, 40, 43
Victorian Law Institute Westminster Palace, 40
Journal, 160 Westminster, 2nd Duke
Village Voice, 84 of, 141
Vincent, Frank Hollis Westminster, Duke of,
Rivers, 194, 195 62
Viner, Charles, 56 Whealy, Anthony, 202
Voelker, John, 100, 171 When the Rule of Law
Voltaire, 136 Meets the Real World,
wager of law, 25 244
Wall Street Journal, 102 Where There’s a Will, 19
Wallace, Natasha, 175 Whigs, 52, 53, 54, 55, 73,
Walpole, Sir Robert, 53, 79, 129, 131, 147, 246
54, 129 White, Byron, 230, 231
Wannon, Charles, 24 White, Dan, 177
Warner (1987), 239 Whitlam, Gough, 127,
Warren, Earl, 162 143
Wars of the Roses, 46 Whitton, Evan, i, ii, iv, 5,
Washman, Seymour, 84 6, 9, 10, 215, 280
water lawyer, 59 Whitton, Noela, iv
317
Index
318