John Bolch (getting his second reference in quick succession) has an interesting post on whether Sir Mark Potter should have given a reference on headed paper for Bruce Hyman, the barrister convicted of perverting the course of justice last year.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what Sir Mark did: I even think he’s wrong to be defensive about what he calls the “error” of the reference going out on headed paper. I rather admire Sir Mark for being prepared to support someone who is probably highly employable – though not as a barrister – but who faces a considerable hurdle now to getting any job.
Read my typo-ridden comment at Family Lore.
This story makes me incredibly ANGRY – not least of all because everyone concerned is completely prepared to stand up for the man purely on the basis of who he knows; Mr Hyman apparently offered a mitigation of ” incredible stress” as a reason for his actions; I would have thought that, coming from a media background, he would be long accustomed to dealing with the aforementioned incredible stress.
Many third six pupils ( for this is what he essentially was at Doughty Street) are eminently and highly employable, just as he is; the only difference is that, had they been convicted of the same offence, the hurdle to getting a job would not so much be a hurdle as an unassailable brick wall covered in barbed wire.
Oh, no! I’ve maddened the MINX! You’re quite right about the employability of pupils generally, Minx – and right that he’s very lucky to have such high-profile friends. Actually I’m against the whole idea of references myself – I think references should be strictly limited to confirming that where a person says they worked, and what their role was is accurate, and to invite any specific information that shows they’re unsuitable for the new job. And you should be able to get damages if one’s not sent. That’d get rid of all this nonsense of judging people by having them or not, who they’re from and how fulsome they are.
Umm wasn’t the point that Sir Mark Potter’s ‘reference’ was a character reference for use in Hyman’s trial and sentencing? (And the headed one was used in his Bar Council hearing). The issue being that this was a member of the judiciary giving a character ref in judicial (or disciplinary) proceedings against his ‘friend’. That rather puts a different complexion on things.
I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with any putative future job.
Lets not forget what the crime was.
He concocted false information, fed it to a member of a charity in order to claim in court that the man who was making every effort to see his child, was committing perjury.
If a Barrister is supposed to be the trusted person in court, who’s word is their bond, then how on earth can any member of the judiciary, let alone someone in his position, give a reference. Keeping a distance from the lying shitbag, maybe a million miles, would have been a better approach.
If the Bar has a set of ethics to protect the honesty and integrity of its members, then do all you can to protect that in the eyes of the public.
Swizz
You may well be right, NL. Gosh, I am a bleeding heart, aren’t I? I don’t often feel like that.