What will be the fate of foul-mouthed Judge Beatrice Bolton?

Judge Bolton (chewing a wasp?)

The  two-day trial  of Beatrice Bolton, 57, during which she was told to stop chewing gum, ended yesterday in her conviction for allowing her pet Alsatian dog to bite a neighbour.

Rather than accepting the judgement of the court system which pays her £138,000 per year salary, Judge Bolton stormed from the room, proclaiming the verdict a ‘fucking travesty’.

She was heard loudly protesting the decision outside the room, declaring that she would ‘never set foot in a courtroom again’.  

Bolton’s barrister, Ben Nolan QC, offered an apology to the court on behalf of his client, but the Bench insisted that she said sorry in person.  She then muttered, ‘I apologise’.

She pleaded successfully for time to pay her fine, saying that she did not have the  £2500 penalty, plus £275 compensation and £930 court costs.   She said later that she has been told she has grounds for appeal, but it is not clear whether she will fight the conviction.

Not surprisingly, the outburst has made headlines and is likely to be viewed in a dim light by a public already made cynical by the recent behaviour of several establishment figures.  The expenses scandal remains an open wound, and the recruitment of glamorous Russian interns into the Palace of Westminster has raised the collective eyebrow of the nation.

However, if we were hoping that the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor will make an example of Judge Beatrice Bolton, we’re likely to be disappointed.  Even if they do  punish her for bringing the judiciary into disrepute, we won't be told how.

As her employers, they are charged with the responsibility of reviewing Bolton’s behaviour in the courtroom, and fixing an appropriate penalty.

But the judiciary has already ensured that the damage to her will be minimalised:

 Last year a Freedom of Information Tribunal (headed by a judge) decided that some members of the judiciary who had been sacked or reprimanded for misconduct in court would suffer ‘great distress’ if details of their own misdemeanours were published.

The Tribunal, and the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, were concerned that the courts would be disrupted if the public were to know about errant judges’ behaviour.  They ruled that, unlike the criminals who pass through their courts, judges were entitled to a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’.

So, we will never know what measures were taken to admonish judges who, for example,

Fell asleep in court during a rape trial

Looked at pornography on their official computers

Were convicted of drink-driving offences

As the Tribunal ruled that knowledge of such behaviour would disrupt the judges’ future cases, it seems fair to assume that many of them will still be working, and deciding the fate of others who have done similar things.

Beatrice Bolton said, after her outburst, ‘I above all else would never disrespect a court’.

Apart from the fact that she had, moments earlier, done exactly that, it now seems as if the judiciary agrees with her on one thing – along with her fellow judges, she does seem to be above all else.