The View From Up North: Courtroom Poetry Scandal

Alfred Thomson Denning, better known as Lord Denning, was a famous and much loved English jurist, known affectionately as the “People’s Judge”. He died in 1999, at age one hundred, after a remarkable career overflowing with cases still read by law students today.

One of his more famous cases was Miller v. Jackson, a decision he rendered while on the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. It is my favourite Lord Denning case because of this lyrical opening:

In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket.

The only way to beat that opening is to channel the Bard and write it in iambic pentameter: “Oh, Elario, why doth this judge of wicked, wicked temper condemn our bats to distant fields brown and shoddy”?

Those of you who know anything about Shakespeare know my honeysuckle line is not remotely iambic. In my defence, it’s easier to write faux-Shakespeare if you don’t worry about the pentameter thing.

Is there a point here? Yes. His Lordship did it his way. I’m sure Tom, as his friends called him, caused no end of concern within the conservative British judiciary. He served during a time rife with judges suffering from T.S.S. (Tightened Sphincter Syndrome). Lord Denning did not have T.S.S.

I ask, what’s wrong with a little flair and personality within the legal world? Nothing.

If you’re Lord Denning, you’re somewhat bullet proof. If you’re a lowly Ontario Crown Attorney, sadly, displaying flair might not be the best idea.

Thus, we wander into the story of John Ramsay. Our good soldier is an assistant Crown Attorney who works in Ottawa. During the closing submissions of a drunk driving trial in 2011, he ventured into Lord Denning territory, writing a poem for his closing arguments. It started thusly:

On July 16, 2010
Crashed his car, did Mr. Anderson
Without second thought, two citizens did stop
And called 911 for fire and cops
At 0220 Blanchette did arrive
Too see if the lone occupant did survive
And peeking his head through the windshield did hear
Mr. Anderson’s claim of “only drinking 15 beer”

Those who love Lord Denning, like me, say, “Right on, Ramsay, way to inject some personality into the legal system.”

John’s bosses apparently felt otherwise. He recently alleged at a preliminary grievance hearing they denied him a merit pay raise to flog him for his poetic outburst. His bosses claimed the denial was not disciplinary in nature and, therefore, it was completely within their rights to deny his pay raise. The arbitrator disagreed with the government and said Mr. Ramsay was entitled to a full grievance hearing on the merits.

It’s interesting to note neither the judge in the case nor the defence attorney expressed concerns about John’s poetic closing arguments. Maybe they got a bit of a chuckle, maybe not. But if the facts in the poem were correct, does it really matter how it’s presented? In fact, after years of listening to conservative, dry closing arguments, I would think a judge might perk up and really listen to a closing presented in a poetic way. The whole justice system is about effective communication. Why would we punish anyone for speaking in a respectful manner that gets people’s attention?

I know, some of you are saying, solemn proceedings, yada, yada, dignity, blah, blah, blah….

To you I say, it’s a poem. If he read it lingerie and garters, I might have a different opinion….

Having said that, it’s one thing to read a poem in court. It’s another to provide a copy of the poem to the Ottawa Sun, which published it for all to see. That did not go over well with Ramsay’s bosses. He was called onto the carpet the next day by Crown attorney, Vikki Blair. Blair forced him to write an apology to the management of the Ministry of the Attorney General. Best guess, there were no rhyming couplets in that apology.

He was also required to apologize to the court at the defendant’s sentencing hearing. Ramsay said this, “The format of my closing submissions was not intended to detract from the solemnity and dignity of these proceedings.” Alas, that sounds like a man who has had the Denning beaten out of him.

Here’s the nub of Ramsay’s case. For the first three years of his career he received a “commendable” rating during his performance reviews along with a merit raise. Ramsay says Vikki Blair gave him a heads up her superiors were pressuring her to issue a rarely-used “needs improvement/development” rating due to Poetry-gate. She promised she would try to convince her superiors to allow her to issue a “commendable” rating. Her superiors ultimately overruled her and Ramsay was blemished with the “needs improvement/development” rating.

The arbitrator will now convene to hear each side’s evidence, but if Vikki Blair actually disclosed she was being pressured to unfairly downgrade Ramsay, hard to imagine it won’t be construed as disguised punishment by the arbitrator.

Which means Ramsay should win his grievance hearing. But, what did he lose? He wrote a poem. He read it in court. The judge didn’t care. The defence lawyer didn’t care. Did he disrespect the justice system by reading a poem? Is our justice system irreparably harmed because he spoke in rhyming couplets?

I don’t think so. It seems like such a trifle. A waste of time. And, if you’re going to punish a guy, punish him. Don’t sneak it in through the back door. That’s unbecoming of a Ministry charged with upholding the laws of the land.

How could we end this post with anything other than bad poetry? Here goes:

Dear Attorney General re: the Poetry-gate scandal,
Don’t you have more important things to handle,
Then to worry about a guy who closed with rhymes,
Maybe your time is better spent stopping crimes.

At least step up and call it what it is,
You’re punishing Ramsay for the Poetry-gate biz,
Do the right thing and clear the haze,
Drop the grievance and give the dude his raise.

Holy smokes, that’s terrible. Still, I’m going to dedicate it to Lord Denning. Thanks for reminding us there is room for personality and different approaches in the practice of law. We don’t all have to drive our luxury vehicles over the cliff with the rest of the legal lemmings.

And to John Ramsay, whatever happens, don’t let them beat the Denning out of you.

That’s your View From Up North. Have a great week.

---

Steve Dykstra is a Canadian-trained lawyer and legal recruiter. He is the President of Keybridge Legal Recruiting, a boutique recruitment firm that places lawyers in law firms and in-house roles throughout North America. You can contact Steve at [email protected]. You can also read his blog at stevendykstra.wordpress.com, follow him on Twitter (@IMRecruitR), or connect on LinkedIn (ca.linkedin.com/in/stevedykstra/).