A Spectator's Notebook

While the trial of Graham Young, the poisoner, progressed, journalists, lawyers, at least two Cabinet Ministers (Mr Maudling and Sir Keith Joseph), officials at the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security, almost everyone connected with Broadmoor, and the police knew perfectly well that Young had already poisoned members of his family.

It is very fortunate indeed that the jury found him guilty. Had he been acquitted and freed, an appalling situation would have arisen. People at the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office, who would have had to deal with verdict. As it is, the case proves beyond the problem, were dreading a not guilty doubt that the procedures for releasing men from Broadmoor, and those who have carried out those procedures, have failed, and two men have been murdered as a consequence of that failure. The pressure that already exists from senior policemen, law reformers and others, that in serious cases an accused's past record should be made known to the jury will, as a result of Graham Young's second trial and conviction as a poisoner, be very difficult to resist. Nor is there any good reason why it should be resisted. Had the jury, in ignorance of Young's record, brought in a verdict of not guilty, then not only would a gross miscarriage of justice have occurred, but a dangerous poisoner could have been set at liberty.

Sharp new practice

There has been a good deal of concern in the past about an entirely different legal practice: that in which a solicitor or solicitors practising in partnership act for both sides when people are buying and selling houses. Senior members of the Law Society have been putting their heads together to draft a new practice rule and they have had informal discussions with Lord Denning, who as Master of the Rolls has to approve the new rule. Fine, you might think. The draft version of the new practice rule, which is very unlikely to undergo major alteration, is of general interest, and is as follows:

1. A solicitor or two or more solicitors practising in partnership shall not act for both vendor and purchaser on a transfer of land for value at arm's length or for both lessor and lessee on the grant of a lease for value at arm's length.

2. Provided no conflict of interest appears and neither party is a builder or developer this rule shall not apply if:—

(a) the parties are associated companies, or (b) the parties are related by blood, adoption or marriage, or (c) on a transfer of land the consideration is less than £1,000, or both parties are established clients, or

there are no other solicitors in the vicinity whom the client can reasonably be expected to consult, or (f) two associated firms or two offices of the same firm are respectively acting for the parties, provided that:— (i) the respective firms or offices are in different localities and (ii) neither party was referred to the firm or office acting for him from an associated firm or from another office of the same firm and (iii) the transaction is dealt with or supervised by a different solicitor in full-time attendance at each firm or office.

Most people will take the view that this practice rule, if put into effect, will represent an improvement on the present situation, although they might wonder why so many exceptions to the rule are necessary.

Private and confidential

Such wonder would be increased many times if they saw the accompanying note which at least one local Law Society has sent to its members and which presumably represents official Law Society policy and thinking. This note says: "This letter is headed Private and Confidential as it is recommended that this subject be very definitely treated as such, because it is hoped that the Rule will be made not under the pressure of further adverse publicity from certain elements of the press etc."

Hmm. That introduction is enough to arouse anyone's suspicions. The letter goes on to explain that the signatory attended a meeting of Presidents and Secretaries (of the various local Law Societies, each representing the solicitors in a given area) with members of the Council of the Law Society on June 21.

The letter continues:

Certain words are deliberately not being defined in the Rule, for example:— Paragraph 2 (b) the degree of relationship has not been defined.

2 (d) "established Client" is a term which has not been defined although the view of the Council of the Law Society is that this could include very close relations (such as children) of existing Clients.

2 (e) " vicinity " and "no other solicitors . . . whom the Client could reasonably be expected to consult."

And as if this were not yet enough guidance to enable any self-respecting solicitor to work his away round the new rule in any conceivable circumstances, the letter reminds the solicitors to which it is addressed:

7. By the existing Practice Rule the Council of the Law Society is empowered "to waive in writing any of the provisions of a Practice Rule in any particular case or cases."

The letter says that the local Committee has set up a panel of three, consisting of the local President, the local Secretary and another named member. The letter (written incidentally by the Secretary) goes on:

to discuss and to give its view on any written application from a Member for guidance as to the interpretation of the Practice Rule when it has been made. It will also deal similarly with an application, if submitted to it for consideration, for a waiver under Rule 5 before any such application is submitted to the Secretary General of the Law Society.

9. No doubt, the Council of the Law Society will take into account any observations made by the Panel if there is an application for a waiver but any such application may, of course, be submitted direct to the Law Society, in London and without the knowledge of the Panel.

And, there, for the moment, the matter rests. Solicitors are not necessarily much good at looking after their clients' interests, but they are very good when it comes to their own.

Beaverbrook was different

I have been reading with avid interest all the reviews I have seen of Alan Taylor's Beaverbrook. As one who knew Beaverbrook slightly and who worked on his Daily Express for over ten years, I would like to add a note or two. Beaverbrook was one of the very few men I have met who, on being first encountered, produced the immediate impression of power or force. When meeting great or rich or famous or powerful men I normally wonder why and how they reached their eminence. Most such men would not stand out in a crowded room except for the activities of the acolytes, hangers-on and gawpers surrounding them and hanging on every banal utterance: Beaverbrook was different: he was obviously extraordinary. After meeting him, one wondered not how he had got so far but why he had not got right to the top of the heap. (He would have made a great Prime Minister for a short, sharp time.) Nye Bevan, Nikita Khrushchev, Bobby Kennedy, Enoch Powell are the only other men I have met with this capacity to impress.

Turbulent priest syndrome

Tom Driberg, himself very much an old Express hand, came close to expressing another aspect of Beaverbrook that frequently occurred to me. He wrote in the New Statesman:

Taylor quotes an instruction from Beaverbrook:

• I have given an order . . . that neither G Chesterton nor Hilaire Belloc are (sic) to appear in the columns of those papers.' But this was because too many Chesterton-Beth:ix articles, for his taste, had been published in the Express. It may be that some timid editor, or some office muddle, had translated a ban on publishing to a ban on mentioning.

This is an example of what I used to call

'the witi-no-one-rid-me-of-this-turbutentpriest syndrome '. Beaverbrook, like HenrY II, would frequently deliver some abrupt off-the-cuff judgement or comment and, such was the absolute obedience he frequently received, these remarks became immediately translated into formal orderS which were immediately executed or kept in force until formally repealed. He once said, "We don't have enough women in the Express. I like to see a woman on the leader page each day." Sure enough, from that daY on, for what seemed an interminable time, there was a statutory woman on the leader page.