Judge Patricia Lynch, QC

The fact that you express a view afterwards does not stop it being evidence of bias during the trial.

Having had to deal with stupid bullies in the past I can assure you that they would see getting a judge to use their language back to them, something judges have not otherwise done, as a victory. It is certainly how I would have reacted in the same circumstances, which means I must be a........ heigh-o, none of us is perfect!

So do I, disagree with MOnica, that is.
I've already said I dislike the use of the word c* but this Judge had already pronounced sentence, so I don't see how anyone could say she wasn't impartial.
On a slightly different note, I don't see why public servants are expected to keep on accepting abuse being hurled at them. I;m not suggesting they should join in the abusive comments or behaviour but I do find it unacceptable that they're expected to remain unmoved when abuse, threats etc are hurled at them.

How do you know that?

I disagree ..

I disagree ..

In his eyes he did - and that is what matters.

Yes, as I said in my first post yesterday, I think it would have been better if she'd just added to his sentence for contempt of court rather than responding in kind, but that didn't happen.

Have to agree with Ana to an extent that the judge replied calmly using this offensive chap's own words.
On reflection though I'm not sure it was the right thing to do.
Must admit to a sneaking admiration for the judge.

From what I've read, the judge didn't crack - she just dished-out a few droll retorts to an obviously obnoxious git.

I'm sure judges have come up with worse comments to the convicted, during sentencing.

M0nica I disagree that he cracked her! She was proving that he had not by calmly repeating back what he thought would be 'shocking' to her. No way would he have thought a judge would say cunt in court! He wanted her to get angry and she did not. He did not 'win'

I think we'll have to differ on this subject, M0nica. From the reports I've read it doesn't sound as though the judge spoke in anger or lost her temper in any way - she simply replied to the defendant using his own language, calmly and without raising her voice.

A defendant like this would not consider he had been taken down a peg or two. On the contrary, he has turned himself into a hero in his eyes and those of his ilk because he had made judge crack and be criticised for their behaviour.

Part of the skill in weighing up evidence is the capacity to stay impartial and above the fray. I have a friend who is a judge and from what she has said to me, judges are not just appointed because they know a lot and can weigh evidence. That is part of any barristers tools-of-trade and as a QC, this judge would have those skills in trumps, but their ability to stay calm and cool and impartial no matter how high the provocation. - and this judge showed a lack of that key skill.

Is it M0nica I thought it was to do with their knowledge of the law and skills in weighing up evidence -and offenders. I think she got her reaction to this pleasant character just right. He was taken down as well as taken down a peg or two. Bet he didn't like being laughed at!

It doesn't matter that the sentence had already been pronounced, the defendant can still plead bias in an appeal because her remarks in court after the sentencing showed a bias or at the very best, such lack of judgement that the sentence must be suspect.

I am quite unforgiving on this because what is meant to put judges above others like us in the courts, and justify their high salaries is there ability to remain calm and detached in all circumstances and not utter the sentences that make other other mortals like us think and say 'served him right' about what the judge said to this defendant.

I don't think she strayed from being impartial - the sentence had already been decided.

He also banged against the glass, raised his arm and shouted Sieg Heil, to which the judge replied "We're very impressed - take him down".

I doubt she'll be sacked.

Spot on Penstemmon!

I think that in repeating cunt, coldly and calmly, the judge was cleverly removing the power of the word from the lowlife that used it to try to demean her. No way should she have to resign.

In the same way that the gay community reclaimed 'gay' as their word to try to reduce its power to denigrate.

In a different often asked children in school to repeat their swearing to me (if they had been sent to me for swearing!) and when they got covered in confusion I would say that they obviously knew it was not a good word to use...

I suspect she used that word back to him in such a dry way as to put him in his place.

The sentence had already been decided. The Judge was announcing the decision to the defendant when he swore at her.

I do not think gender has anything to do with this event. All judges, regardless of gender, have a duty to remain impartial.

Anyone going before the court expects the Judge to reach their decision on their case based only on the facts put before them and nothing else. When a judge acts as this judge did I would say the defendant would have a good basis for an appeal against his sentence because the judge was biassed against them, using the evidence provided by the judges behaviour at the end of their trial.

I would certainly not want to be appearing before this judge i would have no confidence in their judgement.

It is very often the context a word is used in that determines how objectionable it is. I find the "f" word" in Mrs. Brown acceptable but in other circumstances not acceptable and would turn off. I never find the "c" or "n" word acceptable in any circumstance.

JessM,Yes,that's what I think.

Perhaps woman haven't shouted loud enough.

Very good point nannandgrampy.

Or the 'lite' version?