Some childish nonsense – title explains it all.
Poor Mr Crumpet of counsel is going to be the whipping boy in a lot of this. Picture whoever you like as Mr Crumpet.
“Having consulted the authorities presented before me, there does indeed appear to be no reason in law why a man may not marry a squid”
“Mr Crumpet, it did not augur well for your client on his entry to the Drug and Alcohol Court that he formed entirely the wrong impression about the ambit and ambience of said Court and had partaken heavily of both on his way there, to as he put it ‘get the party started’ ”
“I am aware, as Mr Crumpet pointed out that the mother has before her an extremely long and difficult road. He pleaded this as a reason not to attempt rehabilitation and not to go down that road. A wise man put it best – Roads ? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads”
“I find that they were the footprints of an enormous hound”
“I am reliably informed that the powers of the inherent jurisdiction are theoretically limitless, and therefore, I exercise my powers under the Inherent Jurisdiction to award everyone in the case a dinosaur and I shall from this point onwards have always been the drummer in the Beatles, with all that entails”
“This is an intractable contact dispute, almost impossible to resolve. Therefore, I have decided – pud pie, straight to London, no tipsys” * (that might make no sense to Southern readers, sorry. Explanation at foot of page. You’ll all be doing it next week. It would sort this election nonsense out. )
“I want to give a big shout out in this judgment to Dr Kutten-paste – you da man! His evidence was the bomb, I’m sure you’ll all agree. The Bomb. ”
“Mr Grayling, I see that you have come before me today unrepresented as a result of the LASPO reforms, and you stand to lose something incredibly dear to you – I have decided therefore that we shall conduct this hearing in Latin”
“Mr Crumpet, your client gave evidence that he had no tattoo. He is behind you now shaking his head. He is certain that he has no tattoo. Indeed, he showed us last week from the witness box. that he did not have one. Allow me the indulgence of checking again. Roll up your left sleeve sir. Ah yes, I see the surprise on your face. Mr Crumpet, do you recall day one of this fifteen day hearing? You do, good. Would you please examine the tattoo on your clients arm. Now….. is THAT your card?”
“It was argued by Mr Crumpet that section 3, subsection 13 was fatal to his opponents case. I am afraid to inform him that Justice Austin section 3, subsection 13 says he just got his ass kicked”
“It has been explained to me over the lunch adjournment with a great deal of courtesy and skill I might add, that the summary of historical background that I set out in the earlier part of my judgment, was in fact the summary of an episode of Saved by the Bell, which perhaps explains why Screech played a more prominent role in those matters than one might otherwise have thought. In the event that anyone remains curious, I would have found that Kelly should go to the movie with Slater, and that Zach should be grounded for a period not in excess of two weeks. I will now move on with the case proper. I should remark, as I’ve just thought of it, heh heh, that in this particular instance, it seems as though it was I who was saved by the proverbial bell”
“Great reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal authority of Re K 2009. It would be an absolute barrier to the ingenious solution that Mr Crumpet proffers to me. Unbeknownst to you all, as the owner of a time machine, I have had a peek at the law reports for 2025 and Re K has been overturned, so that’s good news for all of us”
“Let me see if I have the chronology of the parental relationship correct. According to my note, of the mother’s account she met him on a Monday and her heart stood still? And at that time, she believed his name to be Bill or William. Whereas the father’s account was that they did indeed meet on a Monday, that he took her for a drink on Tuesday, and matters became intimate on Wednesday, continuing through the Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and then there was something of a cooling off period on the Sunday”
“Yet more discrepancies emerge in the parental accounts of the relationship. Whereas the father insisted that he had saved the mother’s life when she nearly drowned, her account was that he had been at the beach but that he had showed off, splashing around. ”
“Mr Crumpet, you may recall that a particularly unothodox point of law arose before I adjourned. During that adjournment, you had your clerks walk over your Red book. I have been in my chambers, studying this matter myself. Could you please turn to page 172 of the copy of the Red book that you have in front of you? Now… is THAT your card?”
“Matters took a somewhat unusual turn in this case when I was presented with an application for a witness summons requiring that the Ghost of Elvis Presley attend to give evidence. I found his evidence to be compelling.”
“Before I embark on what is going to be a difficult and complex judgment, hands up if you think mother won? And hands up if you think father won? I am going to count the usher at the back of the Court, so that rather settles that. Does anyone have any FAS forms to hand in?”
[*Pud-pie – a method of solving a dispute, or deciding who has to do something that neither participant wants to do. The two players stand a distance apart, facing each other. They take it in turns to take a step towards the other, as though walking a tightrope. The technique is that the heel of your striding foot has to touch the toe of the foot that’s behind. Alternate feet. With each step, player one says the word “Pud”, and when taking a step, player two says the word “Pie”. The winner is the player whose next step will allow them to tread on their opponents shoe. A tipsy is a small jump backwards, that each player may deploy if they think they are going to lose, in an attempt to shake things up. A round of pud-pie with tipsys tends to take longer, so if you want to get the decision over with quickly – “Pud pie, straight to London, no tipsys”
I actually couldn’t find an explanation of “pud pie” on google, so I thought it did warrant an explanation.
Someday I will explain the game of Pondo-Grundy to you all. I reckon I still have a chance to medal in Pondo-Grundy, if the Olympics association ever reply to my letters]
If you are appearing before the Court of Appeal any time soon, try very hard NOT to imagine that they are about to say “Is THAT your card?” during their judgment.
Excellent Post! It is far more interesting in the Election!
Hilarious! Like the Craig David one the best;)
Sent from my iPhone
Pingback: Things I’d like to see in judgments (but ...