Get the wig on
According to Craig Murray’s blog (here) the trial of Julian Assange for bail jumping (my term) took 12 minutes, where Assange said virtually nothing but where the judge found time to describe Assange as a ‘narcissist’ – widely reported in the media. It may be true that Assange is guilty of being a narcissist, but that, so far as I’m aware is not a crime. And what it has to do with bail jumping seems neither here nor there. Perhaps this will be borne in mind if Assange appeals this particular conviction. The judge, having said what he said could be accused of a premeditated decision, applying criteria not relevant to the case. But perhaps the judge himself is a narcissist who finally landed a case in which he could express his prejudice and at the same time get a bit of limelight in what otherwise is a fairly thankless profession.
There will be, in my opinion, a number of judges who are so narcissistic they are destined from birth to sit in judgement on the rest of us. I would like to believe this assessment is not true of most judges. My very limited experience of appearing in court leads me to believe that evidence and balance still reigns supreme (I won’t recount my experience, it is too insignificant). But if a judge wants to make a name for himself (they are still mainly men), he has ample opportunity. Remember judge Pickles, or indeed the Buddhist judge Christmas Humphries – not known for his leniency. Some judges are the worst narcissists, and there should be some protection against this. Perhaps there is. The judge who let off a drink driver from a custodial sentence this week merely because the offender was a woman has questions to answer and I dare say that case will be reviewed. Judges, if they are chosen for their judgemental abilities (eh?) need to display appropriate talents, not sit like some god-blessed arbiter of law dwelling in an oak-panelled extension of their club.
Leave a Reply.