Shmagatha Shmistie 2.0

Another round with Vardy and Rooney ... Remote evidence from a witness - on the bus ... Brazilian magistrate looses his shirt ... CV qualifications propped up by pork pies ... Fast justice by Scissors & Paste ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt in London with the latest regrettable court-related conduct 

Vardy - streaming on Channel 4 

It's 4pm and pitch-black outside. Winter in the UK has technically just begun but already it feels like it's been cold for as long as Kim Kardashian has been in law school (which is seven years). 

To pull me out of my seasonal depression, I've been binge watching the UK version of I'm A Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here! - which honestly embodies how I feel in London (minus the celebrity bit). 

One of the many "stars" featured on this season is the infamous WAG and High Court darling Coleen Rooney who opened up about the whole Shmagatha Shmistie saga on an episode (please note Rebekah Vardy has since trade-marked the actual phrase which is why I'm avoiding using it!). 

Vardy, who lost her defamation case against Rooney in 2022, has criticised Rooney as being "dull ... a bore" in the jungle - a dead giveaway that she's glued to each episode. 

Perhaps these exchanged barbs might eventuate in a sequel to my personal favourite series, Vardy v Rooney: A Courtroom Drama (streaming on Channel 4) – maybe this time, Rooney v Vardy? One can dream.

Now onto the latest legal gossip in Blighty. 

Bus-ted

Clapham bound

In the recent case of Raja & Anor v ATM Law & Ors, the High Court's Master Julia Clark discovered that a witness was providing evidence during a remote trial while travelling on a bus. 

It seems the witness took the legal expression "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" a little bit too literally. Honestly, I'm just impressed the witness managed to get a seat on London transport. 

The Master Clark called out the behaviour as "plainly inappropriate". The witness exited the bus, and the judge allowed him to continue giving evidence from a "quiet place, albeit in a public space". 

The public place was not disclosed however my bet's on Pret-A-Manger given you can't walk more than 50 metres without seeing one. 

Questionable behaviour in court isn't limited to witnesses. Judges themselves have occasionally pushed the boundaries of court etiquette, as illustrated during the pandemic when a Brazilian magistrate attended a virtual meeting shirtless, bringing a whole new meaning to "Casual Friday". 

The magistrate quickly rectified the situation, returning in more formal attire – complete with a shirt and tie. No one knows about the pants. 

Members only 

Yasser Mahmood, an unregistered barrister, failed to convince a disciplinary tribunal that inaccuracies on his CV about his legal experience were the result of his dyslexia.

I blame every lie I've ever told on my acne - sometimes it flares up and I get stressed and confused.

Mahmood applied for a role as an external examiner at Arden University, asserting that he had practiced as a barrister and performed a range of legal work. 

However, he had never completed a pupillage or obtained a practicing certificate and was therefore not authorised to practice as a barrister. 

Mahmood acknowledged that his CV could mislead readers into believing he had been a practicing barrister during that time - but this was all down to his dyslexia - diagnosed in 2005 with a specific learning difficulty.

The tribunal acknowledged Mahmood's diagnosis but rejected the explanation. They noted his CV was otherwise clear and error free, and Mahmood could not point to any other mistakes. 

This must be the first time every someone regretted removing errors from their job application.  

Moreover, in the "membership" section of his CV, Mahmood referred to himself as a "barrister (non-practising)" which was another attempt to bolster his qualifications. 

This has inspired me to add a few "memberships" to my own CV – member of the Australian Olympics team 2028, Oxford Rhodes scholar, member of the royal family - all non-practising of course. 

Mahmood was disbarred and ordered to pay £2,670 in costs. Which would be nothing, if he was in fact a practising barrister. 

Impure plagiarism

Bourne - identity

An employment tribunal has been criticised for copying most of its reasoning from a respondent's witness evidence and written submissions. 

Justice Charles Bourne at the Employment Appeal Tribunal called it a "deeply regrettable state of affairs", noting there was no reference to the claimant's submission at all. 

He thought there had not been a "proper judicial evaluation of the essential issues". 

Due to the tribunal's copy and paste job, Justice Bourne ordered a complete rehearing of the case before a differently constituted tribunal.  

The claimant and her lawyer estimated that approximately 90 per cent of the respondent's submission had been snaffled by the tribunal. 

This is frighteningly similar to when my younger sister at age nine claimed she'd written a novel about a boy with a scar attending a school of witchcraft and wizardry.

Justice Bourne said: 

"Although it is true that a court or tribunal is free to reproduce one party's material where it is efficient to do so, it is very bad practice to do so without stating that that is what is being done." 

The judge acknowledged that the judgment was "not a pure cut-and-paste", however, a large proportion of it was unoriginal. Kind of like James Cameron's Avatar.