Author Topic: Rumpole  (Read 74 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Rumpole
« on: September 28, 2020, 02:15:AM »
We're in need of some light relief, and as Roch correctly intuited, I am a fan of Rumpole.  My introduction to the character was through the John Mortimer books, which I remember fondly. 

While I'm not a big TV watcher, I have to say that Leo McKern was excellent in the eponymous role.

I'll post Rumpole-related material on this thread, starting with some clips.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 02:19:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Rumpole
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2020, 02:19:AM »
Horace Rumpole on 'common sense':

[In reference to pre-juding a "murder"] "Do you use the word before it is proved, my Lord?  It is not common sense, it is uncommon nonsense!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIGzhq9GDdM

I've only ever once encountered a judge like the one here: he was drunk on brandy [I swear to you, it's true], and I was told this was frequently the case, and he indiscriminately called everybody 'squire', except defendants, who he called 'love' (regardless of sex).  He was a Yorkshireman.

The judge in the clip, 'Mr Justice Oliver Oliphant', is sober and lectures Rumpole on 'common sense' and refers the jury to their 'good old British common sense'.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 02:22:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Rumpole
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2020, 02:27:AM »
Rumpole is, I think, the unconscious inspiration for the oratorical touch to my posts. 

I love the clip below.  I could have written such a speech myself and wish I had.  It vindicates the law and the relevance of the Rumpolean spirit to this Forum, albeit he is a fictional character.  It is at least solace for those, like me, who hold to the standard of proof and the English way of doing justice, which is meant to be fair...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua9QU6RjGcg
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 03:36:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Rumpole
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2020, 02:40:AM »
A funny Rumpole clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z91zKX6b-w

I bow to Rumpole's knowledge of Magna Carta, and agree entirely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t-rIofv4tc
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 02:41:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Rumpole
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2020, 02:53:AM »
Another brilliant - and still highly topical - speech from Rumpole [see link below], making the crucial point that just because a jury may, on the evidence, be entitled to find somebody guilty in law, it doesn't follow that they should.  The jury is sovereign as to both facts and, ultimately, the law too.  That's the whole point.  That's how the jury system protects our liberties, when it works as it should. 

Even if a case is proved on the evidence, if the jury does not want to find somebody guilty, maybe because they take the view that the accused does not deserve to be punished, then they can still find the accused Not Guilty.  That is their right and it is a right recognised in common law: known as jury equity.

I've only ever known one real-life barrister who was like Rumpole.  He tutored me informally in the law while dealing with my cases at the time, explaining things to me and telling me what books to read.  He was very much like Rumpole - looked like him and spoke like him, though the fictional character is obviously an exaggeration.

If only more barristers were Rumpolean, the criminal justice system would be better.  Most barristers are rather too tame, in my view. 

What would a Rumpolean defence of Jeremy Bamber have looked like?  I've mentioned before that if I was defending Jeremy at trial, I would have considered it a priority to present the jury with a 'story'.  No offence to Rivlin and Lawson, but I think they rested too much on doubt and did not have a compelling narrative to present to the jury that would stick in their minds.  The more extravagant, Rumpolean approach would have addressed this and provided the jury with a frame of reference within which to understand Jeremy and define him.  As it was, the drier, more 'careful' attitude of Rivlin left it to the Crown to dictate the 'story' and define Jeremy Bamber.

Going back to the clip, I also like the little comical bow right at the end.  Leo McKern was superb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ-uX_JqBk8
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 02:58:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11509
Re: Rumpole
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2020, 11:58:AM »
Not seen much 'Rumpole' but could be tempted to record it.

Lately I have been watching 'Hazel' from 78/79 and it is quality. I thoroughly recommend it. Also found series from early 80'scalled 'Bognor' and have watched some of 'Hannay' from mid-80's (Robert Powell of Jesus of Nazareth fame).  Still on my list are 'The Chinese Detective' and 'Shoestring' both early 80's. Not to mention 'Callan' from the 70's.