Social media giggles as national newspaper describes lawyer as ‘a full QC’

The next ‘top barrister’?

Twitter couldn’t help but poke fun at an article that appeared in The Guardian yesterday, which described 2 Bedford Row barrister Jim Sturman as “a full QC”.

Spotted by crime and regulatory barrister Douglas Lloyd, the blip prompted a whole host of social media reaction, some of our favourites being:

Full QC/half QC jokes aside, The Guardian piece in question raises some interesting points about our criminal law.

Author Simon Jenkins discussed the recent case of Lavina Woodward, a 24-year-old who stabbed her boyfriend with a bread knife. A horrific act — yet Judge Ian Pringle QC seemed to go pretty easy on her.

Not only did he describe the defendant as an “extraordinarily able young lady” who is studying at Oxford and wants to be a heart surgeon, Pringle deferred her sentencing and told the court there was a prospect of a non-custodial sentence. Twitter wasn’t happy about it:

But journalist Jenkins didn’t quite agree with the Woodward/Pringle-directed hate. He described the judge’s summing up as “humane and impeccable”, before criticising the justice system for sending too many people to prison. He concluded:

Britain is addicted to jail — more so than any other developed country except America. We can only hope that a future judge pondering incarceration gets the Woodward message: any prison sentence is for life.

It’s perhaps also worth noting the article includes a short correction at the end. An earlier version of the piece said Woodward had been sentenced, when sentencing will actually take place in September. However, the “full QC” reference remains.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here.

33 Comments

Anonymous

Hey Katie.

The evidence clearly shows that women tend to get lighter sentences than men for the exact same offence.

The case of Lavinia Woodward is a perfect example of this.

So when are we going to see an article from you calling out this very real and serious problem.

Oh wait, silly me, I forgot: men are the ones being disadvantaged.

So you don’t care.

(66)(14)
Corbyn. Sympathiser.

It’s not wrong for Ms. King to comment on ongoing problems and inequities between genders in the legal sphere, given that whilst there is a balance – or possibly even more women – in junior roles, senior roles and the judiciary are dominated by men.

I’m not sure what evidence you have to show women receive lighter sentences than men, but I’ll accept your premise. I have to tell you that the solution for this issue is feminism, which seeks not to demonise men but to get rid of patriarchy. There are a number of feminists who recognise that there are problems which disproportionally affect men in Western societies, including lower life spans, higher suicide rates and lack of sympathy in the event of men being domestically abused (whether by a man or a woman), and seek to challenge these problems by getting rid of antiquated gender roles and, ultimately, patriarchy.

I know I’m just going to be downvoted for this, but if you want to address discrepancies between the sexes, you must become a feminist.

(24)(18)
Anonymous

Cultish nonsense.

No-one needs to ‘become’ anything.

If you see a real inequality in society which you wish to change, you can call it out irrespective of whatever groups you belong to and whatever label you put on yourself.

(11)(9)
Bumblebee

Anonymous @ 1.43pm is right. Feminism is a cult. And like all cult members, feminists are generally well-intentioned but ignorant and almost impossible to reason with.

Corbyn.Sympathiser, I do not question your motives or values. You strike me as a perfectly well-intentioned person. But please understand that there is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Moreover, even if we buy into the CLEAR logical fallacy of ‘women are paid less and so must be being discriminated against’, the feminist narrative STILL doesn’t make sense. It calls for things like legislation which forces employers to pay men and women the same.

Think about it. If I’m a sexist misogynist who doesn’t promote women simply because they are female, legislation like that suits me down to the ground. Given I will have to pay a woman exactly the same as a man, I might as well promote or hire the man.

If, on the other hand, I can pay the woman less ‘for the same work’ (for the sake of argument, I’ll buy into that logical fallacy for now), suddenly I incur a huge economic cost by virtue of my misogyny. I can either choose to pay a man £1 or a woman £0.77 – it’s costing me £0.23 to be sexist.

Trying to reason with a feminist is like trying to reason with a child; they stop at stage one of the analysis.

Observation: Men are paid more than women —> Conclusion: Women are being discriminated against.

Intention: Men and Women should have equal pay —> Conclusion: Force employers to pay men and women the same.

The reasoning of feminists is absolutely infantile. It’s literally the reasoning you would expect from a child who can’t properly think things through.

(27)(18)
A man

You a missing the point. The sexism in paying a man more lies in the subconscious (or otherwise) belief that a man’s work is worth more than a woman’s, or that a man will not provide work ‘on woman’s pay’. Equal pay challenges that view.

(5)(4)
Bumblebee

No. With the greatest respect, YOU are missing the point. You’re really missing the point. I can’t spell it out any clearer than I have already.

1. Pay disparity does not imply subconscious bias.

2. Even if there were subconscious bias, forcing employers to pay men and women the same amount would REINFORCE that bias. If I subconcioulsy think women are worth less, forcing me to pay them more gives me even more reason not to employ them.

Employers don’t view salaries as a benefit, they view salaries as a COST. If I’m an employer and I see a worker demanding a higher salary, that doesn’t make me think ‘gee golly, she must be good’. Rather, it makes me think ‘damn. What’s better for me, keeping her and paying her more, or paying somebody else to do the job instead?’

(7)(7)
Anonymous

Using capitals doesn’t strengthen your argument. I also think you’re still missing the point.

(6)(5)
Bumblebee

You said words to the effect of:
1. Pay disparity results from/evidences subconscious bias.
2. Equal pay challenges that subconscious bias.

I said words to the effect of:
1. Pay disparity does NOT imply subconscious bias.
2. Even if there were subconscious bias, equal pay would reinforce it.

How am I ‘still missing the point’? What point did you make that I missed?

(2)(2)
Anonymous

You clearly do not know a great deal about equal pay claims. The law is probably easy enough for you to understand. Essentially a man and a woman do the same job (ok I simplified that bit for you) then, unless the employer has a reason entirely unconnected with gender, they need to be paid the same. What is your issue with that?

(2)(0)
Bumblebee

Ok, let me spell it out for you. Let’s imagine that there are two workers: Jack and Jill. Jack and Jill are equally capable, equally productive and of equal worth to employers.

Under these circumstances, there is only one reason that employers might pay Jack £1 whilst only paying Jill £0.77 – namely, they are prejudiced (subconsciously or otherwise). However, by choosing to employ Jack over Jill they are incurring a huge economic cost.

Let’s now add equal pay legislation into the mix. Now, since they would have to pay Jill the same anyway, prejudiced employers do not incur any economic cost by choosing to employ Jack over Jill. In other words, the legislation removes the economic incentives which penalise prejudice.

(1)(1)
Bug Spray

You’re confused – this concerns: ethics; morality; social justice; social development etc. Not the demand and supply of goods and services.

Feminist – “a person who believes in the social, economic and political equality of the sexes” (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie)

Cult – “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.”

(1)(7)
Bumblebee

“This isn’t about the supply of goods and services”

“It concerns economic equality”

I despair…

(18)(3)
Ciaran Goggins

Subconscious phallocentric oppression of wimmin. The Patriarchy made me do it.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Feminism claims it’s about equality.

In reality, it’s all about hating white men.

Proof: The Cologne sex attacks on New Years Eve 2015. Had those attacks been carried out by white caucasian men, feminism would have had a fit (and rightly so.)

However, those attacks were in fact carried out by men of a different national and cultural background.

So feminism didn’t care.

(19)(6)
Anonymous

Feminism isn’t a person who chooses to care or not care about thing.

(0)(3)
Frankly

Bullshit.

Women, particularly working class women, are routinely hammered in court, whether they are complainants or defendants.

The issue here is class.

“But whatabout” is the get off the hook refrain for most men.

(2)(7)
legal ninja

The judge is an idiot and ignorant. First of all she hasn’t even finished her degree how can she be promising heart surgeon. After she completes 6 years or medicine she would have had 6 years to train as a surgeon only then could she show any promise. Secondly with history of drug abuse and violent behaviour she would not be passed by the gmc fitness to practice to practice as a doctor. Thirdly she pleaded guilty to abh, again gmc would not allow her to have patient contact, therefore, she can’t practice. She doesn’t have a career so what is going to be damaged sending her to jail? With her being a medical student she would have known by stabbing her boyfriend in the leg she could hit the femoral artery and he could bleed to death. I have seen cases where people have got 7 years for stabbing the attacker in self defence. Talk about destroying careers another case where a dude was becoming a barrister and he was shit hot…represented someone in court without a practice certificate won the case and he got sent to jail for 5 years! The law in this country is inherently racist full of shit and f ed up. The judge needs to be sacked. How can he not send her to jail unless the woman is offering some form of service personal or other!

(1)(0)
Anonymous

I agree wholeheartedly. She will never get past the GMC – doctors and medical students have been barred for far less…… The judge shows remarkable lack of understanding of the system to think that sparing her a jail sentence will protect her career.

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Simon Jenkins is very smart. And if memory serves he led the revision of the Times Style Guide many years ago. He’s a wonderful writer.

I’m not sure what he meant with his ‘full QC’, but if Jenkins sees fit to write it that’s good enough for me.

NB I am not and have never been Simon Jenkins.

(5)(1)
Anonymous

The pointlessness of quoting from Twitter is exhibited by the insightful message from @_catgee.

What kind of informed opinion can we expect when she doen’t even appreciate the rather basic point that the defendant didn’t kill her boyfriend?

(12)(0)
Anonymous

KK laughing up her sleeve at “full QC” is beyond irony.

(11)(0)
Anonymous

What heresy is this? Rumpole was famously never a QC, full or otherwise!

(4)(0)
Anonymous

And She Who Must Be Obeyed never quite let him be okay with it.

(0)(0)
Tim

I quite agree with Jenkin’s arguments. The UK is a country of jail junkies who can barely be bothered to disguise their vindictive eye for an eye vengeance as rehabilitation or something that is actually constructive.

“A job is one of life’s necessities. Prison is the quickest route to unemployment, and thus to reoffending. That is why half of released prisoners reconvict, and two-thirds of younger ones. To have a prison record cuts like acid through any CV.”

Well, the Deaf charity, RNID, did some research some time ago which found that employers are more likely to hire a person with a criminal record than somebody who is Deaf.

That’s why I insist on diversity, positive discrimination and quotas. You don’t get to refuse us jobs AND vote for benefit cuts.

(3)(8)
Anonymous

Its not comment ? The names of options were by unilateral prevent the law ? As a estimation crime ?
Plaintiffs in error self defense plea of general issues appear for redress of a wrong
Affirmer rebuttal appealable order against legal decision American used manual of military forced its real Political Moncracy
Petition of revision to the International supremacy court as countries courthouse
Plaintiff : may I haves questions ? Crown judges defense lawyers juries or defendants suited had been overly next – 17 cases joining plea to the means of proof. ? anyone hads affirments witnesses ?
Inlower caseload , Inrequrement of personal judgment ? a upon two main cases ?
If : allgari non debut probatum non relevant .
What’s the courthouse of personal law ? or personalities in public law ?
What’s means of personality. as perverse ?
former terms American presidents bush and Obama care ? how the judges to arstimatic the kind of unredress unjustified cases ? undertake a lawsuit called mental health behind bars scenes sheming master bosses ? incustody of those manslaughter suffered by painic disorder Mr : Li vice had kills young man at bus Canada
Case two Mr Omard khan was young soldier had killed American sodier at 2003 release to military attachment custoy to 2013 returned Canada 2016 boiled out of court ?
The question ? American called calumny un convicted executed accumulated a sentence behind bars incustody under fire polices rcmp regislstive intended ?
Relates American campaign won the prosecutor ? What’s Briefly of title of ultimum supplicim ? That’s the deparmant of regislative body authorities are Affirmer narrative required intrepretation of the legal framework experts ?
Inbelower the court pays attention ( in legal pralance means =
It’s here = Nemo auditur propraim culpam allegans , Nemo auditur turpitudinem susam allegas
Nemo dat qui non habet
Nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto
Nemo turpidinem saum invocate potest
Nemo potest esse simul actor et judex
Nemo sibi esse judex vel suis jus dicere
debet ,
Two main cases how the courthouse make a verdict judgment about for redress prevert the law ? It’s cases appealable of felony ????????
of applicable law for the from of jurisdictions judicial ????????
Act of court witnesses of criminal statements behind bars incustody forced by malicious prosecutors ???????
It’s : Criminatory anthropology.
This Written by innocent as plaintiffs

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.