On another planet, if not another galaxy
By all accounts of those who know him, Bruce Hyman is a wonderful host and a good friend. He is also plainly extremely talented as a radio and TV_producer. He produced various radio series of Douglas Adams “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” and also, somewhat ironically, acted as Executive Producer of the BBC Radio 4 programme presented by Clive Anderson called Unreliable Evidence.
His most recent career, considerably shorter lived and less successful, was as a barrister. This month he pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice, and he has already been disbarred as a barrister. (Rightly and inevitably). This arose from his actions in the course of the case. One is frequently tempted in the law to say "you couldn't make it up" but that applies the more so in this instance, particularly given his background as the "Unreliable Evidence" producer. He was acting for the mother in a contact dispute last autumn. He had the brainwave, of the inexplicably daft "what sort of planet are they on?" sort, to send an anonymous e-mail to the father enclosing a fake case which supported the father. It purported to come from some fathers' rights charity or the like. When the father then relied upon it in court, this was challenged by Mr Hyman. He accused the father of fabricating the case and seeking to rely upon it. That would have meant that the father was seeking to pervert the course of justice. This could have led to him being sent to prison as well as having a devastating impact upon his contact application.
The only reason why the father is probably not now looking at a prison term himself is because he turned detective. He found out how you ascertain where an e-mail sent from. He found the Internet cafe concerned. When he contacted the cafe, they were able to say that on that day someone had come in and sent e-mails but had not purchased anything. Luckily for the father, they had photographs of the person who sent the e-mails. It was Bruce Hyman. Not only had he misled the court but he had done so in such a way as to effectively frame the father for committing a criminal offence of which he was entirely innocent. At best that would have had a devastating unfair impact upon the father's case. At worst in addition cause him to go to prison.
Bad as this is, it is important to bear firmly in mind that the only reason such an injustice was not caused was because of the wholly improbable fact of the father tracking down what Mr Hyman had done. It is not as though Mr Hyman thought better of it and drew attention to his acts. This was carefully planned and prepared and was deliberately designed to bring about a miscarriage of justice. Utterly outrageous carried out by anyone, the more so by someone in the course of their duties as a legal professional. Particularly because only the persistence of the father, and luck as regards the surrounding circumstances, meant that this wrongful act was ever exposed.
The devastating impact that this could have upon public confidence in the legal system will be exacerbated if a sufficiently severe sentence is not passed. Although it was in my view undoubtedly on the heavy side for a case of its type, Jeffrey Archer received a four-year sentence for perjury/perverting the course of justice. Taken at its most extreme, the case against him could only have been (even if it went that far) altering details and giving evidence to support financial gain for himself. Providing details designed to cause an innocent person potentially suffer a conviction and imprisonment is inevitably far worse. It is even worse when a lawyer is responsible.
Any suggestion that a light sentence has been passed because lawyers look after their own would be most unfortunate. I would take no pleasure in Mr Hyman going to prison. Nonetheless, were he my best friend my view would be the same. Only a custodial sentence will do.
.