Judge Irongirdle laments the inadequacies of claimants in person and district judges
This case occupied the court for far longer than it should have done, for which I have no hesitation in blaming the several district judges who attempted to case manage it. I shall have more to say on that issue later in my judgment.
It is a case which should never have been brought, and the blame for that lies with a government which has no regard for the lives of the hard-working circuit judges who, up and down the country, day in and day out, struggle against enormous odds to apply justice in cases which, had some form of legal aid been available, would have been stillborn in the hands of competent solicitors—of whom I am reliably informed there are still one or two—who would have ensured that claimants, such as that in the present case, would have been in no doubt that their claim was doomed.
As it is I—and indeed Mr Smarmie—have had to spend a great deal of our valuable time listening to the inarticulate, stumbling, ill thought-out and rambling arguments of the claimant, in sharp contrast to the succinct and apposite remarks of Mr Smarmie.
The facts of this unfortunate case can be briefly stated.
On 15 July last year the claimant was walking along the pavement in the rather shoddy and grubby little town where he lives. He maintained that he was keeping a careful lookout at all times. However, he says, the defendant emerged from a shop on his (the claimant’s) right travelling, according to Mr Knucklehead, at an excessive speed and without keeping a careful lookout or paying proper attention.
The evidence of the defendant, Mr Goodfellow, however, was that he was walking very slowly as he had recently purchased a rather expensive vase and was anxious to ensure that he got it home without damage. When he got to the door of the shop in question, he says, he looked carefully in all directions before stepping out on to the pavement. He did see the claimant, but he was some distance away and Mr Goodfellow thought that he had plenty of time to establish himself on the pavement before continuing his journey.
DELIBERATE ACCELERATION
Much to his surprise, however, the claimant got to him far more quickly than he calculated; indeed Mr Goodfellow believes that Mr Knucklehead increased speed deliberately to collide with him, although he has no idea why, for as far as he is aware he has never met Mr Knucklehead before.
As a consequence of this there was, in Mr Knucklehead’s inelegant words, “one hell of a crash” when the two parties collided. Each immediately blamed the other. Passers-by gathered, as they invariably do, to enjoy the spectacle. None of these passers-by, however, could be prevailed upon to give their names and addresses when asked by Mr Knucklehead, a circumstance for which I and no doubt Mr Smarmie are eternally grateful, as otherwise this case would have taken even longer than it did.
Mr Knucklehead claims enormous damages for the injury to his pride and to the diminution of his reputation in the minds of right-thinking men. He submits that this amounts to post-traumatic stress disorder.
Although he has been unable to adduce any form of expert evidence in support of this, contrary to the direction of at least one of the district judges, somehow the case was allowed to proceed to trial. How is it that none of this court’s district judges was able to prevent this? Although I do not know the district judges personally, having only been the circuit judge of this court for seven years, I should have thought that even they could have realised that there were one or two loopholes in this case. I shall be reporting them all to the Ministry of Justice, as I believe the relevant department is now quaintly named.
The case would have taken up even more time had I not exercised a firm hand from the outset and prevented the wilder excesses of Mr Knucklehead’s evidence. My only regret is that I was unable to prevent him giving evidence altogether. I am campaigning for circuit judges to be given this right.
I asked Mr Knucklehead if he had any idea of the legal implications of his claim. He assured me that he had researched it most thoroughly “online”. I understand this refers to the world wide web, which clearly is responsible for much of the rubbish that is heard in courts nowadays. He submitted that Mr Goodfellow had committed the tort of negligence, in that Mr Goodfellow was his neighbour, who owed him (Mr Knucklehead) a duty of care, was obviously in breach of that duty, and as a result he had suffered loss. I asked Mr Knucklehead if there were any precedent; he replied that the tort of negligence was a constantly evolving one, and that the court must be imaginative and adventurous in its approach. Poppycock!
I therefore have no hesitation in dismissing the claim. In view of what I have already said about the management of this case I direct that the district judges of this court do personally pay all the costs, on the highest scale known to man.
John Fortgang
