About the Club
The Justice, 7th December 2002
At 4pm on Saturday, 7th December, we bore witness to another meeting of The Justice. The venue was the room upstairs at the May Pole, on Park Street, Cambridge. Officials of the court were the Law Lords Mr Neil Talbott (NT) and Mr Guy Taylor (GT), along with Clerk of the Court Miss Rebecca North (RN) and Secretary Mr Jonathon Davies (JD).
The court was in order at 4:10pm.
- Drinking cider
- Theft
- "Coughing" in the shower
- Being a twat (repeat offence)
- Actual bodily harm by biting
- Slander
- Endangering members of 1st and 3rd
- Theft (repeat offence)
- Drinking a girl's drink
- Eagerness to pull
- Excessive whinging
- Ignorance
- Meeting conclusion
|
Case 1 |
Prosecution by: Mr Henry Clouting (HC)
|
|
 |
Case for the prosecution:
HC objected that cider is a "teenage" drink. Initially, MC thought that he was a teenager, but then realised that he wasn't. The court noted MC's inability to count.
Case for the defence:
MC pleaded guilty, but under mitigating circumstances - there was no cider at the bop. GT believes MC needs cider to live, but that he cannot count. When asked whether he had agricultural roots, MC admitted that he likes "listening to the tractors".
Additional Notes:
Mr John Earl (JE) commented that in his day drinking cider wouldn't be a crime. Mr Simon Knight (SK) dismissed this as JE is American.
Verdict:
NOT GUILTY of drinking cider.
GUILTY of being unable to count
Sentence:
MC was ordered to buy first 1, then 2, then 3 etc. drinks every time he said the word "cider", to see how high he can count. During the course of the meeting he was required to drink 8 different drinks, each in a different shaped glass or bottle.
| Theft |
the Accused:
Mr Jim Fields (JF) |
|
Case 2 |
Prosecution by: Mr Iain Edwards (IE)
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
IE alleged that JF has taken alcohol belonging to 1st and 3rd from RN's fridge.
Case for the defence:
None given.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
JF must return the alcohol to RN, and must also buy her next 2 drinks. 2 fingers of beer.
|
Case 3 |
Prosecution by: HC
|
|
|
The case was thrown out as coughing does not constitute a crime.
|
Case 4 |
Prosecution by: NT
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
On 4th September, 4 lightweights (actually 1 lightweight, NT, JD and TR) had planned to race the Boston Rowing Marathon. TR was to arrange equipment and transport from Cambridge, whilst NT would drive direct from Leicester. If there were any problems, TR was to ring NT before he left Leicester at 9am on the day of the race.
NT arrived in Boston at 11:30am, upon which an official informed him that he needed to contact TR. TR, giggling, informed NT that there were no riggers for the boat they were meant to be using, and that the equipment and other 3 rowers were still in Cambridge.
Case for the defence:
TR could give no defence.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
GT sentenced TR to drive to a location 2 hours from Cambridge for no reason, to give evidence of having done this, and to drink 2 fingers of beer. TR objected that this was a paradox - to carry out the sentence is in itself a reason to drive to the location. GT qualified his words with "no other reason". The location was decided to be Leicester, and the evidence would be to post GT's miniature rubber duck through NT's front door.
|
Case 5 |
Prosecution by: IE
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
IE claimed that RN bit him on both sides of the neck after a club formal hall. He also alleged that she was attached for a week. The court viewed the latter with scepticism, as there were no witnesses to the act.
Case for the defence:
RN pleaded guilty to actual bodily harm, but by suction of mouth. She then went on to boast about the marks she left on IE's neck.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
It was decided that RN must suck her empty Bacardi Breezer bottle for the duration of the next case.
Additional Notes:
RN also volunteered her camera to capture her executing her sentence. The court noted this act of goodwill, but will probably ignore it when carrying out future sentences.
|
Case 6 |
Prosecution by: SK
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
SK noted that the top which TR was wearing said "lightweight", which TR most definately is not.
Case for the defence:
TR claimed that the word "lightweight" was referring to his ability to drink alcohol, not his weight.
The case was thrown out on a technicality: this is "libel", not "slander".
Additional Notes:
RN removed her bottle from her mouth before this case was closed, and was required to suck the bottle for the duration of the next case.
|
Case 7 |
Prosecution by: GT
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
At the dinner (which was in the badminton court), PW had designed a structure to hang curtains so as to hide one of the breeze block walls. This structure consisted of several lengths of wood, held together by nails. In particular, the left hand column had not been constructed correctly, with an angle of 10 degrees or so between the two lengths of wood making up the column. This weakness left many members fearing for their lives (confirmed by SK and IE). SK noted that PW also sat at the opposite end of the court to the structure, putting himself at no risk.
Case for the defence:
PW argued that even if the structure had been unstable, the seating plan had been designed to minimise damage to 1st and 3rd. Black Prince would be badly affected in the event of a collapse (as would the British Olympic VIII, based on their result in Fairbairns), along with some of the club's triallist. An ex-LMBC rower was also endangered, something for which PW is to be praised. JD claimed that the structure took almost an hour to deconstruct, and that the nails used were particularly "grippy". However, JE claimed that there was still a risk, and PW admitted that no insurance cover had been aquired against the structure falling down. It was also noted that the badminton court in "not in good nick", and insurance had not been taken out against that either. JD pointed out that PW has a good past record with wooden structures - he has filled his accomodation with shelving and other constructions, all of which seem to be solidly built. He also designed the trebuchets for his birthday party, which were successfully used to fight a battle. GT postulated that just because something looks unstable, it doesn't mean that it is unstable, and gave Mary Tudor as an example.
Verdict:
CASE DISMISSED
Sentence:
Whilst no verdict was given, NT suggested that those who felt endangered at the dinner could invite PW to build a structure of their choice, at their own expense.
Additional Notes:
SK suggested PW build a Women's 1st VIII, at which point RN removed her bottle from her mouth to hit him. She was required to suck the bottle for the duration of a further case.
|
Case 8 |
Prosecution by: IE
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
IE accused AR of stealing his bow-tie at the bop. It was noted that AR has an unhealthy interest in men's neckware.
Case for the defence:
AR claimed that she could tie a bow tie, although whether this constitutes an defence the court is unsure.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
AR is to attend a 4th year mathmo lecture on knot theory next term. As evidence of having been to the lecture, AR must present filled in notes at the next meeting of The Justice.
|
Case 9 |
Prosecution by: Mr Matthew Byrne (MB)
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
MB pointed out that MC was drinking a Smirnoff Ice
Case for the defence:
MC claimed to be drinking a variety of drinks to fulfill his earlier sentence
Verdict:
CASE DISMISSED
Additional Notes:
The court voted 9-5 to dismiss the case.
|
Case 10 |
Prosecution by: SK
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
SK told the court that when he asked SA the name of the girl he (SA) was pulling, he had not known. SA proceeded to ask the girl in question what her name was. He was then able to tell SK that she was called "Jenny Lee" (JL).
Case for the defence:
SA didn't not defend his guilt, but claimed that he had only met JL in the WPR and that Mr Will Thorne (WT) had pushed them together before he had a chance to make small talk.
Additional Notes:
Somebody revealed that JL had stroked the 2nd Women's Novice VIII, at which point JD made the obvious and rather crude comment "was she a good stroke?". SA replied that he had "not got that far", which HC considered to be a crime within itself. NT threw out HC's suggestion.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
The court sentenced SA to name the members of the women's 1st and 2nd novice VIIIs, incurring a fine of one finger for each incorrect. SA managed to name only 2 of the women's 1st novice VIII (Jo and Alla), at which point it was decided that he should just down his pint.
|
Case 11 |
Prosecution by: MC
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
MC thinks that IE is always whinging. As examples, he cited his comments after he was barred from Cindies having jumped the rope and taunted the bounces, and his complaints after having been in oral striking range of RN.
Case for the defence:
IE pleaded guilty, as pleading not guilty would be seen as whinging.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
It was decided that IE was to be made a personal slave to somebody else who whinges. RN was the first candidate, but was rejected having considered their past record. Eventually, the court decided that PW was a good candidate, as he has been whinging (justifiably) about the club's finances, but did a commendable job with the dinner. IE must execute any command from PW (to be approved by the court) without complaint.
|
Case 12 |
Prosecution by: NT
|
|
|
Case for the prosecution:
NT claimed that when asked 2 weeks before the event DH had not known the date of novice Fairbairns. As DH is a Lower Boats Captain, this is unacceptable. MC said that he had produced a calendar which should have been commited to memory.
Case for the defence:
DH argued that he know it was on a Thursday.
Verdict:
GUILTY
Sentence:
The law lords agreed that DH would be given a list of the birthdays of all those present. After 10 minutes, he would then be tested randomly until he had remembered 3 correctly. Each incorrect birthday would incur a fine of 1 finger. The results were: MB incorrect, EP incorrect, GT correct (6th December, also the date of novice Fairbairns), Andrew Smith (AS) incorrect, RN incorrect, JD correct (8th May), JE incorrect, MC incorrect, NT correct (8th June). Thus DH incurred a fine of 6 fingers. DH's loyalty to the court has been noted, as he only remembered correctly the birthdays of the law lords and the secretary.
Additional Notes:
On completion of the list of birthdays, JE excitedly blurted out that in fact he was not the oldest present; SK was by 15 days.
Meeting conclusion
DoNM: To be decided.
Rebecca J. North, Clerk of the Court
Jonathon P. Davies, Secretary
