JUDGE IN THE DOCK
As a senior judge he is certainly used to dealing with briefs. But yesterday Lord Justice Richards found himself concentrating on a different kind as he defended his reputation in court.
The 56-year-old married father-of-three had to hold up a pair of Calvin Klein underpants as he denied accusations that he exposed himself to a young woman on a train. The pants, apparently, are an example of the underwear he usually wears. The woman had claimed the man in question, who exposed himself as she travelled to work from Raynes Park, South-West London, to Waterloo, did not appear to be wearing any.
Yesterday the judge told City of Westminster Magistrates' Court he had never seen the woman in his life. He said exposing himself would have been "contrary to my whole nature" and "absurdly risky". Richards, who sits in the Court of Appeal, is accused of boxing a City worker into a corner on a packed commuter service before "flashing" at her. Yesterday the judge was also asked to describe his sexual relationship with his wife of 31 years, Lucy. He insisted it was "very loving and mutually satisfying".
Asked by David Fisher QC if he had exposed himself to the woman in question on two occasions last October, he said: "I most certainly did not." He went on: "There are many reasons why I would not expose my penis. "First, I have no desire to engage in such behaviour whatsoever. I am a happily married family man. I can't perceive deriving any gratification from exposing my penis as alleged. "I would not wish to cause offence, let alone alarm or distress, to anyone.
"I value greatly the attributes of courtesy and respect for other people. "The conduct alleged is simply contrary to my whole nature and approach to life. "Beyond that, I do believe that as a judge, one has responsibilities of probity as well as criminality that go beyond those of one's ordinary social responsibilities. "The sort of behaviour that is alleged against me is not behaviour I would countenance." Richards then moved from the morals to the logistics of such antics. Anyone exposing themselves would not be able to do so without a 'very high risk of being seen and detected' on a packed train, he said. That risk would be heightened by the fact that so many of those on the route from his home in Wimbledon to the Royal Courts of Justice would recognise him.
The judge is alleged to have exposed himself on October 16 and 24 last year. The woman, in her 20s, said a middle-aged man wearing a three- quarter-length trench coat stood close to her and exposed his genitals. She had no idea who he was but later identified him in an undercover police operation as the Right Honourable Sir Stephen Richards. Yesterday, Richards said he "accepted the similarity" between himself and the man the woman had taken photographs of on her mobile phone after one of the incidents.
He conceded he would have been travelling on the same route at the time of the first incident because he had been dealing with a "particularly heavy" three-day appeal at the time. At the time of the second incident, he would have been going in to work to read court papers. "I have noticed many people who are similar in height, colouring and dress because it is the classic catchment area for the professional community, the City community, and there are many people who travel that route who I don't describe as twins of myself, but who look similar to myself," he said.
"I have actually seen people carrying the exact rucksack to myself." His accuser said she usually travelled in the first carriage of the train while the judge said he generally took the second. He added: "I have no recollection of seeing her at all prior to this hearing. I did not recognise her." His wife, asked to describe his character to the court, said: "He's just a wonderful person, a loving and lovable person and just not the sort of person who would ever dream of doing anything remotely like this. It's just completely out of his nature." Richards denies two counts of indecent exposure.
-------------------------------------------
COMMENT FROM GIOVANNI DI STEFANO: As I have already previously stated the whole charge is farcical and fails to comply with the law. This whole saga has cost those in real need of justice much time wasting because it has precluded a brilliant legal mind the ability to work during this whole farcical episode. Whilst Lord Justice Richards will be made a laughing stock come what may you can rest assured that the so called victim will whatever happens sell her story to the Sunday Newspapers. There will be no winners from any of this. But the losers will be those awaiting justice.