Stick to the law, judge, and spare us the lecture

ARE judges entitled deliver political lectures to defendants? In fact, are judges in criminal trials supposed to get involved in politics at all? I think that, in the days when I used to cover trials at Swindon Crown Court in the 1970s, everyone in the room would have fainted if such a thing had happened.

Yet it now seems to be allowed. In Bristol a few days ago, District Judge Lynne Matt hews fined Robin Campbell, an antilockdown protester, a bruising £1,500 for the new and very unBritish crime of taking part in a gathering of more than two people.

In the course of sentencing Mr Campbell, who pleaded guilty, Judge Matthews chose to read out a long and moving description of the pain and stress of working in a Covid ward, written by an anonymous doctor and published in The Times.

But when Mr Campbell sought to respond, the judge retorted: ‘I know about the science. What is it about your predicament on November 14 that meant it was proportionate for you to put others at risk?’

I think this is just wrong. Some people believe that lockdowns work, though there is in fact no evidence that they do and quite a lot that they do not. I myself think street protests are a waste of time, but I think the law banning them is oppressive and more rigidly enforced than practically any other law in existence in the country. If only burglary was met with such steel and punitive vigour. But I am infuriated by the incessant false claim, by supporters of lockdowns, that their opponents are callous about the lives and health of others.

Did the judge honestly think the defendant knew or cared any less than her about the pain and suffering of Covid? Did she in some way know that he did so, or did she just presume this because of her own view of the matter?

If challenged, could she justify with hard scientific fact her assertion that, by demonstrating against a government policy he disagreed with, Mr Campbell had chosen to put others at risk? I greatly doubt it.

The whole point of the law is its cool impartiality, its judgment of the facts by a jury, and of the law by an impartial, dispassionate judge. If judges are going to start offering politico-medical lectures from the bench, it changes us into a completely different kind of country. In effect, a defendant in such cases is on trial for his opinions, not his actions.

Does Judge Matthews desire such a state of affairs? I doubt it. In that case she should not do this again. But I fear someone else will. Much that we used to know and trust about this country is vanishing with amazing speed.