A friend was in court recently for not having his car taxed. In fact, he had sent a cheque to the tax office, but weeks later there was still no sign of his tax disc in the post. He presented a photocopy of the cheque to the judge and explained the situation. The judge dismissed the charge.
It was my friend's first visit to a court, his first experience of rubbing shoulders with the criminal fraternity and the flotsam and jetsam of society. But he wasn't in the least bit depressed. "I had a great day," he laughed. "It was better than the Abbey Theatre. There was real life there. I haven't had better entertainment for a long time."
After 40 years of covering courts and tribunals I know exactly what he meant. Courts and tribunals provide hours of interesting entertainment for the public - the unemployed, pensioners, tourists, people with nothing better to do, etc. It is now a great national pastime to drop in off the street and watch the cut and trust of legal battles. Barristers and solicitors are becoming stars.
Out of the rain
Some of the regular court attenders become backroom lawyers and think they know it all. You would think the case couldn't start without them. They will sometimes sidle up to a reporter and predict what the outcome of a case is going to be, trying to impress. They will earnestly tell you: "There was a similar case here two weeks ago and the defendant got six months, so I expect this guy will probably get something near that." And the fact is they do get to know a lot about the workings of the judicial system. A barrister once cruelly remarked to me: "I suppose it gets them in out of the rain".
They are a bit like the long term hospital patient, the man who is incarcerated for weeks and has begun to think he is a doctor, a master of diagnosis. When YOU arrive in hospital, he wants to know what you are suffering from and then quickly gives his own diagnosis. He can frighten the life out of you with some tactless remark, like: "The last guy who had that ailment here died a couple of weeks ago". He thinks tact is a thing you put in a carpet.
If it is a big murder trial, it is almost impossible for the reporter to get a seat in court. It is one of the unsatisfactory things about court reporting that the journalist, not being an officer of the court, has no right to a seat. If a reporter leaves his place to run out to telephone his office, there is invariably a person sitting in that spot when he returns. When Charles Haughey turned up to give evidence at the Beef Tribunal, members of the public were hanging out of the rafters. A colleague had to politely eject a woman and her two children out of the press seats. He patiently explained to her that he had a job to do, but she was very reluctant to leave and took her time before eventually vacating what she thought was great vantage point. The fact that there was a notice in big black type clearly saying PRESS didn't seem to matter to her. Facilities for the press are far better in tribunals than in the courts.
Jury drama
One aspect of the courts which is always guaranteed to provide a bit of drama is the selection of the jury. All sorts of excuses are proffered as to why people cannot serve. Nobody wants to do jury service and everybody has their own tale of woe to explain why they shouldn't be on the jury.
I once served on a jury. It was all very chaotic. There was, to say the least, confusion among some of us. One of our number, an elderly gentleman, said at an early stage of the proceedings that he was convinced the defendant was innocent. We quietly explained to him that the person he was talking about was a witness, not the defendant.
Having spent so much time covering courts I have picked up quite a useful knowledge of the law. On one occasion during a compensation case I met a barrister at the lunch break. Over a pint and sandwich I was able to give him a tip. He had been questioning a witness all morning but hadn't asked him what I considered to be a vital question. When the barrister went back after the break he asked the crucial question and, eureka, won the case. I was quite chuffed. Unfortunately, I didn't get any commission for winning my first case. But I got quite a bit of satisfaction out of being a good ventriloquist. I'm pleased to have helped the barrister who went on to become a prominent judge.
Innocent
Then there was a case in Wales recently where an innocent man was jailed by mistake when a juror coughed as the verdict was read out in court.
The foreman of the jury said: "Not Guilty" - but another juror's sudden cough drowned out the word "not". The defendant stood dismayed in the dock as the judge jailed him for two years for making a threat to kill.
The man was taken down to the court cells to wait for the van to take him to prison.
The judge then thanked the jury at Cardiff Crown Court for their efforts during the two day trial and released them. But after trooping out of court one of the jurors asked a court usher why the defendant was given two years after being found not guilty.
The official realised there had been a mistake and called everyone back to court. The very confused defendant was led back into the dock and told there had been a mistake. The judge said he was free to go.