Can a judge speak his mind?
Magistrate Malloy
Do magistrates have the right to express themselves freely, must they be politically correct at all times, or is a more plain worded description allowed from time to time?
My good friend on Twitter, @dcd_barrister, alerted me to this article. Magistrate Austin Malloy is in trouble for speaking his mind. According to his law clerk, Christine Dean, he was too frank! She challenged Mr. Malloy in open court, saying: ”It is totally inappropriate and unjust for you to use the term ‘absolute scum’ in the youth court.” She later encouraged one of the boy’s mothers to go ahead with her plans to make an official complaint.
The magistrate described two boys as “absolute scum” for vandalising the Blackburn Cathedral and he has been warned that he could face disciplinary action. He has been removed from his post as chairman of the bench while he is investigated by the court. Magistrate Malloy has been on the bench for the past 18 years. He criticised two 16-year-olds at the town’s youth court after they caused £3,000 (approx. $4297) worth of damage. The teens wrote sexual and racist graffiti on prayer books, including the words ‘I will kill all Jews’, and bent an ancient St John the Baptist cross after being invited to have a look around the cathedral.
Blackburn Cathedral/Courtesy Alamy
Magistrate Malloy said at their sentencing hearing the following: ”This court is disgusted by the mindless destruction you have caused. Normal people would consider you absolute scum. If it was in our power, we would have you both stand in front of the congregation at 10am on Sunday and explain your words and actions to them to see if they could understand it, because we can’t.”
At that, the law clerk jumped up and told the magistrate that this was not an appropriate description of the two teens whose identities cannot be revealed due to their age.
We are not sure what the clerk was considering here. Maybe the wording in a place of justice? Maybe she was considering the boys’ self esteem and self respect? Maybe she just does not like Malloy!
So now I ask you: how inappropriate was this magistrate? Thoughts anyone? Do you agree with the clerk? Would you have protested to those words? Or, do you think those words are not severe enough to warrant removing a magistrate from the bench? And last, is this the best way for a clerk to voice differences of opinion with the magistrate?
Let me introduce you to one of Malloy’s supporters: the father of one of the boys, who along with his son cannot be named for legal reasons, but who backed the magistrate’s choice of words. He said: “I totally agree with what Mr. Malloy said and I’ve not got a problem with him whatsoever. I back him 100 per cent. As far as I am concerned Mr. Malloy should get his job back. The whole family is absolutely disgusted with what our boy has done and he knows we are disgusted. I’ve worked my whole life and my son was brought up as a Catholic boy going to church, so why he has done what he has done, I don’t know.”
His son, known as Boy A, was given an 18-month supervision order and ordered to pay £1500 compensation costs, while Boy B was given a 12-month supervision order and ordered to pay £100. The duo was caught after signing their names in the visitors’ book…priceless!
The mother of Boy B has made an official complaint, but Boy A’s dad said, “There will certainly be no official complaint from me. He has been a stupid boy.” Mr. Malloy said he was pleased by the dad’s backing, adding, “I am obviously very encouraged by the support given by this man.”
Magistrate Malloy was set for a face to face showdown with court officials to discuss his future yesterday and attended an ‘informal meeting’ at 10am. The Chairman of the Bench and the Justices’ Clerk are working together to find out exactly what happened in court with a view to determining whether any further action is required. In the meantime, Mr. Malloy has agreed not to act as a Bench Chairman though he will continue to sit as a magistrate.
But thefour-hour meeting with officials also resulted in Mr. Malloy being ordered to appear before a full disciplinary panel. He declined to comment as he left Blackburn magistrates court yesterday. But he appeared shocked that the matter was being taken further.
Vidocq is shocked that this description of what Mr. Malloy said is taken this far. If showing respect for these two teens is the issue how about talking about a clerk who challenges a judge in open court! She could have faced him and given him a signal to sidebar but no, she challenges in open court showing utter disrespect for the judge, the law, procedure and for the integrity of the court room. But Vidocq cannot find any news articles that deal with that showing of disrespectful behaviour and wonders…why is SHE not in trouble?
To be continued…
The BBC article is here.
Categories: Vidocq Unscripted
Tags: Blackburn Cathedral, freedom of speech, Magistrate Austin Malloy, sentencing, UK, vandalism
The youths will be getting mixed messages about authority figures. Clerk should have been more discreet.
An excellent remark, Evie! What kind of example did the clerk set here? These children clearly needed to be taught that such disrespectful and destructive behaviour will not be tolerated. And when they come in to face their punishment they see a clerk taking sides while the clerk should have remained neutral. I am frankly appalled that Magistrate Malloy is facing this investigation. I’d like to know what motivated the clerk to do this.
Thanks again for reading and commenting on my posts! Have a fantastic weekend, my friend! Vidocq
Thank you Vidocq, I think your point about the clerk remaining neutral is a very important one. Taking that the clerk was not there to represent the youths.
It is interesting that two sets of parents had different reactions/views.
It’s easy for anyone to pick out one word (as with the word scum), but the English language is also about the context in which the word is used. If the phrase read – This court is disgusted by the mindless destruction you have caused. Normal people would consider you absolutely despicable. Would it be challenged?
I like to read your posts, you raise good points.
You have a great weekend also Vidocq.
He did not directly call them absolute scum instead referring to ‘normal people’ either to the exclusion or inclusion of himself. Either way, I do believe the clerk has overreacted and perhaps overreached her position.
When admonishing a child it is often useful to remind them of how others may perceive their behaviours. I often find myself saying “please don’t do that because it’s naughty and you are not a naughty person” but if in public I quietly add that people may wrongly think so. Is it not useful to gauge our behaviour against reasonable members of society? He did not say they were absolute scum, simply that they may be seen to be so…hopefully pricking any consciences they may have.. It is laughable that we may act in such a manner but be afforded the right not to be confronted by the image we portray.
You too, Evie. I guess my frustration at this point boils down to this:
1: worse has been said and those judges were not removed so why Malloy?
2: the clerk clearly showed disrespect for the court but nobody mentions that in news paper articles, why?
3: is this a one time incident or was there a tensed relationship between the magistrate and the clerk?
4: if the latter is true, was this the best way to resolve any issues? Clearly here, the answer is “no.”
Should you hear or read anything related to this topic, please alert me. Thanks again! V.
Thank you for stopping by and for taking the time to comment, S!
You raise another excellent point: magistrate Malloy referred to the image others may have of them and how they may be perceived by others based on their actions. And I agree, it often works very well to show to a child (and that still includes teenagers) how they are perceived by others.
Thank you again! Have a great weekend, V.
I would call the clerk absolute scum. Trying to score some points on the social-democratic p.c. agenda, at the expense of the (authority of) the court and freedom of speech. And of course the inquisition follows up, trembling with fear for being accused by just one concerned citizen of not acting in the interest of juvenile scum and the great, appeasing society they pretend to live in or strive to create – against better judgement, as crime and youth-related problems are bigger than ever. But then, the weasels rule, terrorising the silent majority with their ‘moral superiority’ – “Political correctness: evasion masquerading as sensitivity.”
Wonderful to see you again at DCC, Sjefke, and thank you for a very refreshing comment.
I agree. If those kids had Vidocq on the bench they would have gotten a very strong worded lecture that would have stayed in their memories forever. I also agree with Malloy that leaving them to answer to the church members would have been a good idea.
Let me see if I can find out more about the magistrate and his politically correct clerk!
Thanks again, Vidocq