About the Club
The Justice, 2nd December 2001
On the afternoon of Sunday, 2nd December, an assembly of The Justice was held, at The Regal public house (Wetherspoon's) on St Andrew's Street, Cambridge. The Law Lords were Mr Christopher Ingram (CI) and Mr Neil Talbott (NT), the latter also acting as Clerk of the Court. Secretary of the Court was Mr Jonathan Glass (JG).
At 4.30pm, NT brought the meeting to order. The court was opened to cases.
- The wearing of inappropriate clothing
- Careless driving
- Pedantry and inanity
- Disloyalty
- Associating with the enemy
- Associating with the enemy
- Misuse of English
- Sporting incompetence whilst representing the university
- Disrespect for club property
- Cradle-snatching
- Transvestism
- Fraud
- Liking salad
- Transvestism
- Looking foolish
- Breaking CUCBC rules
- Poor coxing
- Lack of directional sense
- Theft
- Criminal damage
- Going AWOL
- Losing to a girl
- Lack of commitment
- Meeting conclusion
|
Case 1 |
Prosecution by: Mr John Earl (JE)
|
|
 |
Case for the prosecution:
JE accused GT of continuing to come to Justice meetings in citrus knitwear, in this case a tangerine jumper. GT’s unrepentance was noted, the repeat nature of the offence increasing the severity of the crime.
Case for the defence:
GT claimed that multiple cleansing of said garment had caused its colour to fade to that of terracotta.
Additional Notes:
JE was chastised for his inability to say ‘orange’ in a non-comedy way, either as noun or adjective; when asked to state the colour of said fruit, JE then claimed that it was comprised of 'infinitely thin red and yellow stripes', prompting hoots of derision from the court.
In a show of leniency, their Lordships requested that GT go to the bar and purchase the drink whose colour most closely resembled that of his jumper, with the citrosity or otherwise of said drink to indicate his guilt. GT returned with a bottle of J2O consisting of 80% citrus fruit, but claimed that a certain variety of Hooch was a closer match. He was sent to purchase this also. On return it was unanimously agreed by the court that the J2O was a closer match.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
GT was ordered to down the bottle of J2O, combined with a shot of Vodka. He was permitted to consume the Hooch at his leisure.
|
Case 2 |
Prosecution by: Miss Catherine Aiken (CA)
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
CA claimed that JD had parked his motor vehicle (a white Ford Escort) in an area signed liable to flooding, on the Tideway stretch of the Thames, during a training weekend on the 22nd-23rd October 2001, with the consequence that the vehicle was found to have partially filled with water following the second outing on the Saturday. It was suggested that JD was unable to read, but CA called Mr Martin Peck (MP) as a witness; MP confirmed that it had been suggested orally to JD that he should move his car, but that JD had ignored this advice. MP also confirmed that the car had experienced flooding, and that much inconvenience had been caused to other boat club members since their help had been required each time to help to start the car each time it was used.
Case for the defence:
JD claimed that the flooding was not the cause of the failure of the vehicle’s starter motor some three weeks later. He also claimed that only around half an inch of water had enter the car, but when this was challenged on dimensional grounds he admitted that about 40 pints would be a more accurate estimate.
Additional Notes:
It was noted that the crime was more severe on account of JD being male.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
JD was sentenced to drink 3 pints of a fluid whose colour matched that of his vehicle, with no visit to the lavatory permitted between commencement of imbibition and a period of one hour after completion.. Milk was agreed to fit this criterion, but visits to both the bar (useless) and Sainsbury’s (closed) proved fruitless (or rather milkless) and so JD was temporarily pardoned, though at the discretion of the Law Lords he may still be forced to serve this sentence at a future time.
|
Case 3 |
Prosecution by: Mr Edward Peacock (EP)
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
EP claimed that AC repeatedly asked stupid and pedantic questions. As an example he noted that AC had displayed excessive knowledge of the Rules of the River (eg spinning & one-way rules), and had on more than one occasion questioned their sense; Mr Jim Fields (JF) was called as a witness to confirm this.
Case for the defence:
AC admitted that he had asked such questions but claimed that this did not constitute a crime.
Additional Notes:
CI believed that knowledge of and respect for the law should not be considered to constitute a crime; NT was in agreement. Moreover, NT noted that he himself were not averse to the occasional quality display of pedantry, after the fashion of the Honorable Graham Fisher (absent), and that such displays should not be condemned but respected.
Verdict:
NOT GUILTY
Sentence:
The accuser, EP, was reprimanded for his disrespect of the law. He was ordered to make careful study of the CUCBC handbook, in preparation for an examination at the next meeting of The Justice, at which GT (CUBC Honorary Secretary 2001-2) will adjudicate.
|
Case 4 |
Prosecution by: GT
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
GT noted that NT was sporting a garment (white polo shirt) bearing the name of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the sponsor of a rival (Christ's College BC), as well as some navy trim in the manner of the Dark Side.
Case for the defence:
NT pointed out that the garment in question was a piece of Cambridge University clothing (namely, a piece of casual wear from the university athletics club (CUAC), with the relevant crest embroidered) and so his loyalty was clear. He also claimed that wearing navy items cannot in itself be a crime, since navy is the primary colour of the mighty 1st and 3rd. Furthermore, he pointed out that the garment came free with membership of CUAC (membership which he would in any case have taken), calling Miss Amelia Russell (AR) as a witness to verify this (although he accepted that this did not force him wear it). [Addendum to minutes: NT subsequently realised that he was in fact forced to wear it since everything else he owned was in the wash.]
Additional Notes:
It was agreed that the case was tenuous.
Verdict:
NOT GUILTY
|
Case 5 |
Prosecution by: JG
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
JG reminded us of an incident earlier in term where Mr Walker had been seen to be making close contact with a member of LMBC, following a Formal Hall at Trinity. NT, called as a witness, confirmed this, and noted that there had elapsed a substantial period of time during which neither DW nor his acquaintance had been seen, although he admitted that this was partly because everyone else had left DW's room (Q6 Great Court) in order to have a fight over a water bottle in Great Court.
Case for the defence:
DW announced that his acquaintance had said that she never wanted to see him again; however, in the eyes of their Lordships, the obvious regret with which this was said merely added to the guilt of the defendant.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
DW was ordered to restore his loyalty by consuming a blue drink; he earned credit by returning with both a blue beverage (WKD Vodka Blue, bottle) and a gold (vodka & Red Bull).
|
Case 6 |
Prosecution by: JG
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
Following the tardy arrival (circa 5pm) of HC, JG immediately noted that his clothing bore much red.
Case for the defence:
None
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
HC was ordered to restore his loyalty by consuming a blue drink; he returned with a bottle of WKD Vodka Blue.
|
Case 7 |
Prosecution by: CI
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
JE was heard to ask the bizarre and irrelevant question of whether anyone in court was wearing yellow socks. CI noted that if he were talking about 1st and 3rd socks then 'yellow' should have been substituted with 'gold'.
Case for the defence:
JE claimed that he had indeed meant to say yellow, and that he was referring to MP's pair of yellow socks. Called to the witness box, MP confirmed that he owns a pair of yellow socks, although he is unclear about their origin, suggesting that they may have been left by an 'acquaintance'.
Additional Notes:
It was pointed out by JG that if JE had actually been referring to MP's socks then the question was needlessly unspecific, as well as being completely irrelevant, and that the charge stood.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
It was agreed that to sentence JE for misuse of English would invite comparisons with Sisyphus, and so no sentence was passed.
|
Case 8 |
Prosecution by: Mr Thomas 'The Twat' Rose (TR)
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
TR noted that while competing for Cambridge University Lightweight Rowing Club (CULRC) in the I-Lan international regatta in Taiwan in the summer of 2001, JE had caught a boat-stopping overhead crab at approximately the 1500m mark.
Case for the defence:
JE attributed his error to the fact that he was rowing on stroke-side, which 'sucks' (sic), adding that his career contains no such blemishes on bow-side. He claimed that the deficit to the other competitors (Yale and Melbourne) was already sufficient at that stage to cause the error to have had no effect on the result. Further, he pointed out that it was his first race as captain of 1st and 3rd and that (as demonstrated by the majority of his recent predecessors) catching a crab under such circumstances was inevitable.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
JE was ordered to purchase a pint of a drink of his choice (this proved to be lemonade). After this had been topped up until a meniscus under surface tension had formed, he was ordered to hold it above his head with one hand, with no contact with his scalp permitted, for a period equivalent to that of the duration of the race (this was taken to be approximately 7½ minutes), attempting to spill as little as possible. Furthermore, at about the 1500m mark (circa 5½ minutes) it was agreed that a 'disturbance' should take place, to enhance the difficulty of the sentence.
Additional Notes:
Prior to the disturbance, inability to hold the glass in the correct orientation caused JE to be slightly wet; moreover at about the half-way stage he was forced to change hands through tiredness. The disturbance manifested itself in the propulsion of peas towards JE by NT and JG. As in Taiwan, the disturbance proved fatal; in this case, JE unaccountably lost control of his drink and launched it at their Lordships, missing CI and NT but drenching JG. He is to be censured for this act.
|
Case 9 |
Prosecution by: Miss Sarah Taylor (ST)
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
ST's case related specifically to the defiling of the message boards on www.firstandthird.org. It was noted that during a meeting in the room of Miss Rebecca North (RN), H5 Great Court, earlier in term, a number of obscene quotations were submitted to the website, causing great distress to several members, including the webmaster, MP, who was present and confirmed when called as a witness that he had been forced to remove the offending items. It was established that the posts had included references to hair, odour, size and G-spot stimulation.
Case for the defence:
CA and JD said in their defence that the quotations themselves were made by AR and HC, who were therefore the guilty parties. Meanwhile, CA and HC said in their defence said that the quotations had been submitted to the website by JD and AR, who were therefore the guilty parties.
Verdict:
CA: NOT GUILTY. JD and AR: GUILTY. HC: GUILTY of the lesser charge of obscenity.
Sentence:
JD and AR were forbidden from visiting www.firstandthird.org for one week; as webmaster, MP is to monitor and verify this, and breach of this injunction will result in further punishment at the next meeting. HC was sentenced to cleanse his mouth, by holding one shot of (blue) aftershock in his mouth for 2 minutes, including gargling; he took up this challenge, holding the liquid in his mouth for the required time, and gargling impressively. He then refilled the glass with a rather glutinous but still undeniably blue liquid, which he drank.
|
Case 10 |
Prosecution by: DW
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
DW accused AM of preying on innocent Magdalene freshmen, although evidence and details were not forthcoming
Case for the defence:
Pot-kettle interaction issues were raised by CI; DW's suitability to raise such an accusation was thus brought into question.
Verdict:
NOT GUILTY
|
Case 11 |
Prosecution by: ST and CA
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
It was claimed that TR had dressed up in woman's clothing (perhaps in preparation for the women's captaincy, noted JG?). By his own admission, his breasts were 'ridiculous'. [Addendum to minutes: NT suggests removing them now?]
Case for the defence:
TR's defence was that he was forced to dress up as a woman in order to play a female rôle in a game.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
TR was ordered to make a foray into the women's lavatory and to utilise a cubicle, witnessed by a female member of the court.
Additional Notes:
Shortly after his sentencing, TR received a telephone call from a 'friend' claiming to be in the pub. TR was not seen again for some considerable time, prompting suggestions that he had jumped bail and the confiscation of his (highly malodorous) hat, although he did eventually return. After displaying a seemingly common captainly lack of resolve in carrying out his punishment, TR eventually entered the lavatory with the aid of CA and AR. Shortly afterwards, an unknown lady was seen to enter the toilet; moments later, ST received a text message from TR, now inside a cubicle. After some 6 minutes, TR emerged unscathed.
|
Case 12 |
Prosecution by: AM
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
AM declared that EP had thus far failed to pay the sum of £25 in remuneration for the excellent Boat Club Dinner which he had attended the previous evening.
Case for the defence:
EP claimed that he did not know to whom he should make his cheque payable. This claim was rubbished by Mr Daniel Jane (DJ) who had sent to EP several emails explaining the protocol for payment. EP then claimed that he had been round to AM's room (J1 Whewell's Court) but that she was never there. NT verified that AM was rarely in her room, having experienced the same problem; AM admitted this, citing work crises causing her to relocate to the library [addendum to minutes: NT notes that AM is reading SPS and so is clearly lying], but made the point that it is perfectly safe to put a cheque under the door (whereas in the absence of a cheque book, NT was forced to pay by cash).
Additional Notes:
CI was found to owe the same amount, but was carrying the payment and so cleared his debts immediately; this represented a period of approximately 24 hours between order and purchase of his ticket, and so was not considered to constitute a crime.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
EP was ordered to produce payment for AM with immediate effect; for every minute which elapsed he would be fined one finger of beer. After 7 minutes, he returned, denouncing the local cash machines and claiming that they were out of order; he had however found a non-local one in operation and was able to pay, somewhat out of breath. After some fresh air, he downed a total equivalent to 7 of JG's fingers (namely a pint).
|
Case 13 |
Prosecution by: JE
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
JE stated that CI likes salad.
Case for the defence:
CI proudly admitted that he likes salad.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
CI was ordered to eat a forkful of the cold peas on JG's (long-finished) plate. These had been kindly been drenched in lemonade by JE, causing them to mix with remnants of mustard and giving them a distinctly unpleasant appearance [addendum to minutes: and taste! (CI)]. After one false start, and to pained noises from eye-witnesses, he managed this.
|
Case 14 |
Prosecution by: DW
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
DW noted that in the latest kit order, JC had bought a white hooped top, which is a piece of women's racing kit. Further, DW claimed that JC had bought a 'small' top, into which even his (JC's) slight frame was unable to squeeze.
Case for the defence:
JC claimed that although a piece of women's racing kit, the white hooped top is a very fetching piece of generic 1st and 3rd training kit. He cited Mr Matthew Byrne, Mr William Thorne (vet) and the Honorable Mark Crawford as other (absent) members with the same piece of clothing. He also claimed that the tops were very under-sized, and called AR and CA as witness to this fact.
Verdict:
NOT GUILTY
|
Case 15 |
Prosecution by: DW
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
DW said that IE had been seen dancing in crazed fashion at the bop the previous evening, sporting a rather silly pair of braces.
Case for the defence:
None; IE was too drunk to recall the incident.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
As 1st and 3rd Kit and Social Secretary, DW noted that IE had bought a great deal of kit, having won the 'Most Kit Bought' award at the dinner, and therefore the need for him to wear braces instead was called into question. IE was deemed to have rejected his new kit, and was ordered to wear his braces in the boat for an outing during January training camp next term.
Additional Notes:
IE claimed his braces had been broken while he was tripping the light fantastic; he was ordered to mend them before carrying out the sentence.
|
Case 16 |
Prosecution by: AR
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
AR accused the aforementioned couple of having broken both CUCBC and club rules, and having used club equipment inappropriately, by having gone 'late-night sculling'.
Case for the defence:
MP and CA initially denied this charge. MP then spun the clearly fantastic yarn that he had taken out a sculling boat, gone past Emmanuel Footbridge and a little further, spun and returned, all in the last throes of daylight, thereby breaking no rules and contravening no social etiquette. A vote amongst members of the court produced a verdict of 13-3 in favour of conviction. Following this, certain admissions were made, including something about 'under where the blades are kept', followed by an acknowledgement from the accused that 'it's a bit dirty down there' and a retort from the floor that 'it is now'.
Additional Notes:
NT asked whether MP had used Stump for the purposes of his sculling, or whether Muddy Waters had been employed; CA claimed that they had used Magpie, after which further investigation was considered distasteful.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
The defendants were let off with a caution.
|
Case 17 |
Prosecution by: EP, JF and AC
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
It was suggested that DJ had shown a lack of competence in the coxswain's seat during the Emmanuel Sprints event midway through term, making various elementary errors. In particular, while coxing one of his men's novice crews (the 2nd Novice Men) against a women's crew, DJ's eyes were seen to wander to the other boat, causing an erroneous line to be taken. Further, and more seriously, DJ was observed to use a mobile telephone while the race was in progress.
Case for the defence:
DJ claimed that the other boat were aesthetically pleasing. He also said that the poor coxing was the least of the boat's problems, citing various crab incidents, mostly in the stern of the boat.
Additional notes: NT noted that poor coxing is inexcusable, and should not be tolerated.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
DJ was ordered to use his mobile telephone to contact a number (pre-dialled and unknown to DJ) of the Law Lords' choice. This was originally chosen to be a member of 1st and 3rd with whom the convicted had experienced close liaisons less than 24 hours previously, although a lack of discretion amongst the floor alerted him to this and the recipient of the call was changed. Following one unsuccessful call to another member of the club, this time a cox, Mr Simon Case (SC) was successfully contacted. As briefed, DJ proceeded to claim to be coxing a race and be in urgent need of help, owing to the one-length deficit to the opposition with just 500m of the race remaining. DJ requested advice on tactics, in between making attempts to convey the atmosphere of the race, including screaming at various members whose had caught imaginary crabs. It was reported by DJ that SC was bamboozled and had put his phone on 'Speaker' for the amusement of his house guests; DJ is to be commended for his efforts in serving his sentence.
|
Case 18 |
Prosecution by: DJ
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
DJ cited an incident involving the 1st Novice Women, Titan and the Elizabeth Way bridge, said incident having rendered Titan unsuitable for racing. DJ accused JG, who was coaching at the time, of having failed to prevent the incident.
Case for the defence:
JG argued that the coach cannot be held responsible for coxing errors. Further, he claimed that the cox in question, Miss Caroline Reed, had been solely at fault in this incident, despite his having been assured by AR and CA that she was highly competent.
Additional Notes:
NT noted that having coached the same boat for three outings two weeks' previously, he concurred wholly with the views of AR and CA.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
It was agreed that JG should experience a similar incident from the cox's perspective. He was therefore sentenced to being blindfolded and guided around the lower floor of the building by the women's lower boats' captains, AR and CA, whilst holding a full pint of beer. The blindfold in question consisted of a scarf, TR's smelly hat and a santa hat. The tour was relatively successful; JG introduced himself to some people en route, including one rather scared-looking couple; sadly the obstacle course consisting of a line of pouffes was removed at the instruction of the establishment's manager. After a full circuit, JG was allowed to remove his blindfold and down his beer.
|
Case 19 |
Prosecution by: NT
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
NT recalled a number of incidents during term when AR had been seen with an excessive number of ties around her neck, none of which belonged to her. He remarked that several gentlemen from Magdalene College had been left almost in tears when the accused would not return their property.
Case for the defence:
AR offered no coherent argument; she suggested that NT was churlish to bring this charge since one such incident had led to three rather fetching novice women hanging from his neck, but NT (while acknowledging this) considered her defence irrelevant.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
AR was ordered to borrow a garment, preferably a tie, from a stranger in the building, and to wear it in court for a few minutes. After much whining a nearby gentlemen was approached and, with assistance from ST (to whom said gentleman was known), a tie was borrowed and the sentence was served.
|
Case 20 |
Prosecution by: DJ
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
DJ claimed that JF had borrowed his (DJ's) splash-top and had returned it wet, mud-encrusted and generally soiled.
Case for the defence:
JF claimed that he had only worn the splash-top in order to bank-party the defendant as a favour; on questioning DJ admitted this. Further, GT suggested that splash tops are intended to be dirty ; he has never washed his own, in accordance with the instructions of the Honorable Simon Knight, former Clerk of the Court.
Verdict:
NOT GUILTY
|
Case 21 |
Prosecution by: CA
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
CA reported that MP had through 'illness' failed to attend the bop in the Wolfson Party Room following the Fairbairn Dinner, held in 1st and 3rd Boathouse on the evening on Saturday 1st December 2001.
Case for the defence:
MP mumbled something about how there had been 'more alcohol than usual' at the dinner.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
Having deprived the rest of the club of their termly entertainment, MP was ordered to display his dancing skills. Though he refused to remove his shirt, he did waltz, jive and boogie around a complete circuit of the establishment, including the upstairs balcony, from where he delighted onlookers with a storming rendition of YMCA.
|
Case 22 |
Prosecution by: AR
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
It was claimed that at a Formal Hall at Trinity, in celebration of the coming of age of one of the leading lights of the women's boat club, NT had eaten a dessert hands-free, following the abscondence of his cutlery. While this does not in itself constitute a crime, AR alleged that NT had been beaten by not one, not two, but three girls in the challenge.
Case for the defence:
NT claimed that he had desired to savour the excellent chocolate cake, and had not been partaking in a race. This defence was rubbished by witnesses who claimed that NT had been heard (as verified by MP) to exclaim 'Oh no! I've lost' (or a variation thereof) on completion of the cake.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
NT was fined to purchase a large piece of chocolate cake with vanilla sauce from the bar, and to eat it sans metallic assistance; this he did.
|
Case 23 |
Prosecution by: DJ
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
DJ asserted that on the evening prior to the Novice Fairbairn Cup, 2001, the aforementioned novices had partaken of Christmas Formal Hall.
Case for the defence:
In their defence, the trio (all of the 2nd Novice Men) stated that they had drunk no alcohol and had gone to bed shortly afterwards. This was initially considered to be acceptable, until DJ pointed out that they had posted a slower time than the 1st Novice Women of LMBC, a far more serious charge. The defendants admitted this, their claims that said women displayed uncharacteristically high levels of testosterone being ignored (although not dissented) through lack of evidence.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
All three defendants were ordered to purchase two drinks, one gold, the other blue, and (since their loss was attributed largely to timing issues) to down them simultaneously.
Meeting conclusion
At this point, circa 7pm, proceedings were brought to an abrupt halt by an unpleasant man with an unkempt beard and preposterous waistcoat, claiming to be the manager. Initially the response from the Law Lords was muted, since one had left to catch a train and the other had his face in a mountain of chocolate; however, the Secretary delivered a riposte on their behalf, towering over the gentleman and requesting his name. This he declared to be 'James', although it was ascertained that in the manner of a Brazilian footballer, his surname did not exist; unfortunately his name badge could shed no light on the matter, bearing not his name but his title of 'Shiftman', bringing into question his claim to be the manager. Never the less, drinks were downed, chocolate was consumed and coats were collected.
DoNM: To be decided.
Neil A. Talbott, Clerk of the Court
Jonathan McI. Glass, Secretary
