ANOTHER VOICE

How the thickness factor begins to threaten every aspect of our private lives

AUBERON WAUGH

Iaccept you are a man of excellent character, but what sort of distinction am I to draw between a man of excellent charac- ter who commits this sort of offence and young men who come before the courts accused of using a six-inch blade?' asked Judge Michael McMullan in the Wood Green Crown Court, North London, trying the case of a 56-year-old charity worker and butterfly collector, Mr Eric Butler, accused of carrying an offensive weapon namely a swordstick — in a public place.

The judge had explained that he was frequently dealing with cases of offensive weapons involving knives, usually carried by 'young men of poor education, poor economic status and unsatisfactory family backgrounds'. He asked how he could distinguish between such people and Mr Butler, who had used the sword-stick to defend himself against a mugger who was throttling him and beating his head against the door of an Underground train.

I do not know what sort of education Judge McMullan received at Tauntons School, Southampton, nor do I know whether his family background was satis- factory or unsatisfactory, but I should have thought the answer to his question was obvious. The distinction to be made was exactly as he made it — between a respect- able, elderly man carrying a potential weapon for defensive purposes and a young thug carrying an offensive weapon of no defensive capability.

However, instead of making this distinc- tion, the judge proceeded to fine Mr Butler £200, confiscate his £400 swordstick and sentence him to 28 days imprisonment, suspended for nine months. Mr Butler, who will now have a criminal record, revealed that the case had cost him more than £3,000 in legal fees.

An independent witness told the court exactly what happened in the Under- ground train between Seven Sisters and somewhere called Tottenham Hale. Two men sitting opposite began taunting Mr Butler, who was carrying a collection box for the Royal National Lifeboat Institu- tion. When they could not provoke him, they pushed him against the doors and began banging his head repeatedly:

They began taking the mickey out of him and generally having a go. Then one of them had him against the door, strangling him. His head was systematically banged violently into the doors. His face was bright red and his eyes were popping. But the man just kept smashing him.

After a certain amount of this treatment, Mr Butler managed to draw his swordstick and disable his assailant with it. At this point, the independent witness, an onlook- er, pulled the communication cord. When the train stopped at Tottenham Hale sta- tion, Mr Butler was arrested.

I of course accept that you were not a person swaggering about and using it, but you were carrying it and it is a breach of the law which has become so prevalent in London in recent months that one has to look at a deterrent.

In fact I very much doubt that it has become normal for 56-year-old charity workers to carry swords in their walking sticks, nor would it matter in the least if it had, but once again the judge was deliber- ately refusing to distinguish between a potential weapon carried for the purpose of self-defence and an offensive weapon carried with criminal intent.

No sooner had the judge delivered his sentence than all the usual pressure groups took up the case, once again refusing to make any distinction. Mr Tony Judge, a spokesman of the Police Federation, used the occasion to deliver a homily on the carrying of knives, and demanded new laws to curb the carrying of offensive weapons.

For which, I have no doubt, there is a good case, but it was particularly in- appropriate to apply it in this instance. One of the most frightening things about modern England, apart from the number of psychopathic and uncontrollable young thugs at large, is the encroachment of what I can only call the thickness factor in public life. It was brilliantly described by Bruce Anderson in the Sunday Telegraph with reference to the TUC Conference, but of course we would expect it to flourish there, just as we would expect it to flourish in the lower recesses of the police force which `Tony's' Police Federation represents. It was this same Federation which milked the Hungerford massacre to demand tighter control of shotguns — once again, of no relevance to the case in point, except through the operation of the thickness factor on a new public anxiety.

It is even more alarming when the thickness factor is allowed to influence politics and the administration of the law. Politicians, by and large, are not thick, although they think it democratic to pre- tend they are from time to time. Perhaps a few, like Mr David 'Dave' Mellor and Sir Eldon Griffiths, are genuinely as thick as they seem, although I doubt it. But Mr Hurd certainly isn't thick. We must wait until the Conservative Party Conference to see how he plays the issue of knives and unsporting firearms — whether to allay public anxiety, or to advance his own career by setting his cap at the thickies.

But it is the advance of this thickness factor in the administration of the law which is the really disturbing new develop- ment. Judges, after all, are not democrati- cally accountable, and there is no excuse for them to make obeisance to the thick- ness factor. To listen to Judge McMullan, one might suppose that in order to spare Mr Butler, he would have needed a sepa- rate Act of Parliament which distinguishes between middle-aged, middle-class, law- abiding citizens and young thugs. Such a law would, indeed, be difficult to frame, but it is not necessary. It is not the law which is an ass on this occasion, nor even the jury, only the judge who instructed them in the law.

To carry a potentially offensive weapon in public is not an absolute offence. It is an offence to carry such a weapon only without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It is a 'reasonable excuse' to claim that you carried the weapon for self- protection if you can show that there was an immediate danger of attack. Nobody can deny that there was an immediate danger of attack. Res ipsa loquitur.

The worst aspect of all is that Mr Butler is left with a £3,000 bill for legal expenses — something his assailant will certainly not have to worry about when he eventually comes to court, faced with the possibility of some strenuous hours of community ser- vice. Thick judges may be an acceptable hazard, and thick juries almost standard, but legal brigandage is institutionalised, and it is a scandal which stinks to heaven. In the weeks ahead, I hope to assess Mrs Thatcher's achievements to date. One of her most notable omissions has been to tackle the Augean stables of the legal profession which, through its corrupt, idle and incompetent practices, effectively pre- vents any aspect of British life from re- forming itself. But we are used to vil- lainous lawyers. It is the arrival of a new generation of really stupid lawyers which calls for urgent government action.