Bizzare moments in a court of law and banter in London

So there we were on a Friday afternoon in London, all sweltering in the courtroom, the air conditioning was obviously set too low to make any difference. The barristers in their wigs and gowns were sitting patiently waiting for the judge to reappear. Seven barristers in total, all adversarial, all on point to get their clients off of all charges, all with individual air fans directly on them.

The crown prosecution barrister was particularly authoritative, his manner and body language indicating he carried the moral right to assert justice on behalf of the people. Despite the great manners, courtroom courtesy and the court protocols he acted as top dog, he who should be listened to, with slight sighs and shrugs of shoulders forever indicating his unhappiness whenever a defence barrister requested, clarification or a point to be made.

There were 3 defendants, maybe guilty maybe not, who am I to judge? I was not there and these I know are good people, so despite the physical evidence I am convinced they are innocent, I just need the jury to follow my thinking.

grass-hands-moss-4627-525x350.jpg

So despite the arguing and posturing on points it was amusing when sitting there awaiting the return of the judge to hear some good hearted conversation turned into humorous banter.

In the UK banter is described as jovial, humour with an edgy touch, sometimes insulting, often an insider joke. The word banter was originally introduced into the english language around 17th century, its had a resurgence of use of late as the word banter somehow perfectly describes the easy going exchange of comments and remarks.

Who would have believed the rottweiler crown prosecution service would have a sense of humour and engage in banter? That his fierce teeth would be muzzled and a softer game dogs soft mouth would appear. The pecking order was changing before our very eyes.

Who would have believed the previously adversarial group all jostling to be heard would engage in light hearted humour. Unexpected banter could be found in a place dripping in routine, protocols and prescribed behaviours.

Its this ability to change our manner and behaviour in an instant that may be our salvation, to recognise dialogue may not be personal, not aimed at defeating us, not intended to make us look small. The ability to be able to carry on, walk further on our journey without taking any personal offence, it is this that sets us apart, this ability to move on that enables us to fly high as human beings.

photo-1427348693976-99e4aca06bb9.jpg

Whilst long lasting relationships are built on foundations of trust they are sometimes ended prematurely by misjudged comments, off the cuff remarks not intended to cause harm. How many loving relationships have circled the drain due to a miscommunication issue, a badly told joke, a seemingly personal slight, an off the cuff remark. Or banter that went too far.

Banter has some rules, unwritten and unread which must be observed. Within this courtroom on this hot humid day, the banter was a welcome relief, like a cool breeze reminding us of the humanness of the process. So despite the wigs and gowns, the theatrical behaviours and protocols there was still some room for humour.

The rules of banter within this courtroom were absolutely nothing personal, nothing about the case being heard, nothing about the place we are in. No bullying, no bantering with someone who cannot give it back. For it to be banter it must be reciprocated otherwise it can be bullying, or something else entirely.

For a few minutes a feeling of normality seeped through the walnut lined walls and down through the glass barriers, moving across the empty dock and settling down eventually around the spectators gallery.

For a few moments normality reigned and man's ability to ascend personal differences won. Lighthearted banter reminded everyone Hey, we are all still human here, despite our differences and motives.

A moment that was not to last as the jury returned and the cool breeze was lost forever. The jury in their wisdom clearly failed to agree with my thinking around coincidences, and unexplained happenings; sadly everyone charged was found guilty.

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
Join the conversation now
Logo
Center