Judge's rulings on immigrants and benefits must be seen - but not heard
Being a judge is rather like being a football referee or a cricket umpire. You work in isolation, the hours are a lot longer than anyone thinks they are, and any decision you make is likely to disappoint at least 50 per cent of the people you make it in front of.
For judges, there is an added burden of making sure that you don’t say something stupid whenever you open your mouth.
Discipline action: Judge Trigger (left) has landed in hot water with Lord Judge (right) after he said in court that illegal immigrants were in Britain to leach off the generous welfare system
Judge Ian Trigger is in trouble for saying that hundreds of thousands of immigrants only come to the UK to receive generous welfare payments.
Whilst he was undoubtedly expressing an opinion held by a vast number of people in this country, the most important thing about any judiciary is that it should be seen to be entirely impartial and to conduct cases without any regard to their own personal opinions.
Share this article
In giving vent to his own views in this way, Judge Trigger has not only done himself no favours, he has also given the accused an opportunity to appeal against their conviction and sentence, on the grounds that he was biased.
Judge Trigger was, of course, merely the latest victim of judicial foot in mouth disease. Who can forget Judge James Pickles, who famously told a rapist that his victim had been ‘asking for it’ by wearing a short skirt? Or Judge Myerson, who commended a rapist for his consideration in wearing a condom?
Judge Trigger’s comments probably don’t fall into that category of stupidity, but they hardly help when the powers-that-be have worked so hard to dispel the image of judges being badly out of touch with reality. It is, after all, a long time since a judge asked who Gazza was, or for an explanation of the phrase ‘Linford’s Lunchbox’.
- Richard O'Hagan is a lawyer with Brittons Solicitors, specialising in litigation, media and sports law.
