BOW STREET BEAK

by Ronald Bartle
Chichester: Barry Rose Law Publishers, 2000

At the outset, I wish to acknowledge that this is not a timely review, but I only became aware of this book quite recently and consider that the contributions made by Judge Bartle to our understanding as to the workings of this important mechanism of the administration of justice, notably relating to extradition cases, ought not to be overlooked. Setting aside practical considerations, it is a delightful tome that provides enjoyable insights into the mindset of the human embodiment of criminal justice. Indeed, the fact that one of the most experienced Stipendiary Magistrates in England has penned his memoirs remains of contemporary interest by reason of the detailed views he advances respecting the problems facing criminal justice, the need for certain reforms, and the development of the lay magistracy in light of the Auld and Halliday Reports, leaving aside the quite interesting accounts of trials involving prosecutions ranging from the Queen’s intruder to President Pinochet. As Lord Hurd of Westwell observes, “We have learned academic volumes on criminology. But alongside these there is scope for a practical account based on down to earth experience of how the system actually works…” (Bartle, 2000: ix).

The qualities of the book, both in terms of highlighting the nature of the criminal law in its application and enforcement at the “entry level” of the general community, and in terms of its general readability, is framed by the opening chapter “Drama at the Palace” and the concluding chapter “The Pinochet Drama”. These two accounts, one akin to daytime drama and the other demonstrative of legal lore having inspired many articles, debates and certain texts¹., demonstrate both the majesty of the Law and its many shortcomings.

In particular, reference is made to the many examples of the judge demonstrating that a decision maker and sentence selector is above all things a human being. For example, I note the confession found on p. 11 that Mr. Bartle felt “perhaps a trifle mean” in confiscating certain equipment from a daredevil, in order to save his life in essence. As suggested by Louis Blom-Cooper Q.C. and Terence Morris, “We have long since moved away from a world in which judges and magistrates interpreted their powers to sentence at large in ways which often said more about the sentencer than the sentenced.”² That is not to say that sentencing, leaving aside the act of judging, is not deeply impressed with subjective elements, as is repeatedly demonstrated throughout the 216 pages. In the same vein, Judge Bartle discusses laughter in Court to illustrate the very human (and humane) side of judging but not without underscoring the need for humanity in the decision to prosecute and, on occasion, to condemn certain elements of erring humanity. By way of limited example, note the discussion on pp. 23-25 that serves to caution us against over-zealous prosecutions.

I commend as well the chapter entitled “Coping with Crime” as it provides many insights touching upon proof of prevalence, the dilemma of the unit fine, theoretical and practical criminology, and the philosophy of sentencing in general. Indeed, the issue of disparity is discussed ably on pp. 32-41 and the examples advanced echo the more scholarly but no more learned observations of Anthony N. Doob and Jean-Paul Brodeur in their article “Achieving Accountability in Sentencing” in Accountability for Criminal Justice, at pp. 376-396, especially on p. 385 where they quote a judge about the issue of two greatly different sanctions for what appeared to be similarly situated offenders and offences: “Maybe both judges were right”³. Noteworthy as well is the resulting debate surrounding the need to enforce the law with evenhandedness but being mindful that the prosecution of certain individuals, clerics, politicians, and police officers, etc., often leads to cynicism within the community respecting our institutions, and the thoughts of the author on the issue of decriminalizing certain drugs and substances. The view from the front lines, as noted by Lamer C.J.C. in R. v. Proulx (2000), 140 C.C.C. (3d) 449 *S.C.C.) at par. 123-126, are always welcome.⁴

Attention is also drawn to the author’s signal contributions to our understanding of the pas de deux involving the criminal Bench and the media that is advanced at various stages of the book, notably on pp. 67-83. Further, the potential development of the lay Magistracy is well discussed on pp. 101-116 and I am grateful, on a personal note, for the constant reminders of the importance of not appearing to favour either the prosecution or the defence by any element of one’s conduct, as illustrated acutely by the comment made by a chairman who noted of a leading defence counsel who had accepted a prosecution brief, “Nice to have you on our side for a change” (see p. 131). There are flaws in this book, however, that must not be overlooked. One cannot endorse the comments found on p. 45 to the effect that certain social groups may present a passive exterior but once the façade is broken it is a very different story.

At the end of the day, Judge Bartle demonstrates with a wry sense of humour and a penchant for the understated conclusion that his former court enjoys an imperishable place in the history of crime and punishment an although the author fears being described as either an historian or an autobiographer, he succeeds in both endeavours with the same degree of skill that marked his contributions to criminal justice. Bow Street Beak provides entertainment and enlightenment and what more can be asked of any non-specialist text?

^1. See in particular the excellent collection of texts edited by Mark Lattimer and Philippe Sands, Q.C., Justice for Crimes Against Humanity, Hart: Oxford, 2003, and a smaller volume From Nuremberg to The Hague The Future of International Criminal Justice, edited by Philippe Sands, Q.C., Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2003, reviewed by the writer in Law Society Journal (July 2004), pp. 85-86.

^2. See p. 167 of With Malice Aforethought – A Study of the Crime and Punishment for Homicide, Hart: Oxford, 2004.

^3. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1995, edited by Philip C. Stenning.

^4. Refer to G. Renaud, “The Changing Face of Conditional Sentencing: Conditional Sentencing Symposium Proceedings, Department of Justice (Canada), May 27, 2000, pp. 59-63.