The Times - UK (2022-05-26)

the times | Thursday May 26 2022 57

Headline here xyx

Xxy xyx yx yx yx

xyx yx yxxyx yx yx

xyx yxx yxxy yxyx

yx y x yx yx yxy xx

thetimes.co.uk

In conversation

Sir Ivan Lawrence

on his career that

included defending

the Kray twins

thetimes.co.uk

Not too many British lawyers have
been executed, at least judicially.
In 1738 the barrister Thomas Car of
Elm Court in the Temple, described as
a “low attorney”, was hanged for rob-
bery. James Boswell, Dr Johnson’s biog-
rapher, watched the attorney James
Gibson hanged at Tyburn for forgery in
1768 and thought him the bravest man
he had ever seen on the scaffold. And in
1789 two Shropshire father-and-son so-
licitors, both named Thomas Phipps,
were executed for forgery.
However, 100 years ago next week —
on May 31 — Major Herbert Rowse
Armstrong, a 5ft tall Hay-on-Wye so-
licitor and clerk to the local justices, had
the dubious distinction of being the
only solicitor to be hanged for murder.
Yet he was not the first solicitor to be
tried for poisoning his wife. Two years
earlier, Harold Greenwood, who prac-
tised a few miles from Hay-on-Wye,
also stood trial. However, Greenwood
was acquitted after his daughter gave
evidence that she had drunk from the
bottle of wine with which Greenwood
was said to have tampered.
At first, the death on February 22,
1921, of the domineering, neurasthenic
Katharine Armstrong, who had re-
turned home from a mental hospital a
few weeks earlier, was certified by the
local doctor as heart failure.
It was not until October that year
that a letter was sent to the director of
public prosecutions suggesting that the
diminutive major had tried to poison
Oswald Martin, the other solicitor in
Hay-on-Wye, who was beginning to
erode Armstrong’s practice.
It was alleged that Armstrong had in-
vited Martin to tea and handed him a
scone saying “scuse fingers”. Martin
was violently ill that evening.
Earlier a well-wisher had sent Mar-
tin’s wife some poisoned chocolates.
From there it was a short step to the
exhumation of Katharine Armstrong,
whose body was riddled with arsenic.
There was no dispute about that. The
only questions were whether she had
taken the poison in a suicide attempt or
by mistake — or that the major had
given it to her in a massive dose on the
day before her death.
Armstrong was unlucky. Sir Edward
Marshall Hall, who had defended
Greenwood, was unwell and exhausted
after defending three capital trials in
quick succession. In his place the hail-

fellow-well-met Sir Henry Curtis-Ben-

nett was instructed, who nonetheless

was highly paid and well respected.

Armstrong’s lawyer, who implicitly

believed in his innocence, collected

defence witnesses who, while eminent

medical men, did not specialise in toxic

cases. And against them was Dr

Bernard Spilsbury, a pathologist who

was at his magisterial and bombastic

height. The attorney-general prosecut-

ed with something less than the impar-

tiality expected.

Armstrong was not an easy client.

Curtis-Bennett only saw him on the

day of the trial and Armstrong appears

to have wanted to discuss the result

of the Oxford-Cambridge boat race

rather than his case.

But, far worse, the trial judge, the

epicene political appointee Mr Justice

Darling, who drooled over Spilsbury,

seemed determined to obtain a convic-

tion. Greenwood had been acquitted;

Armstrong would not be.

But in fairness to Darling, he was not

a hanging judge. He had gone out of his

way to save Steinie Morrison, the

“Clapham Common murderer”, from

the gallows, pointing out to the jury

ALAMY

exclusive to subscribers

Fight for rights Ministry of

Defence clings to immunity

Green contracts Climate

clauses aid race to net zero

thetimes.co.uk

The hanging of a killer solicitor

Herbert Rowse Armstrong with his wife Katharine, whom he probably poisoned

that giving a false alibi — particularly

in the case of a foreigner who did not

understand the English legal system —

was not proof of guilt.

Now, however, Darling ruled that

evidence of the poisoning of Martin

could be admitted and after Armstrong

had given evidence for 24 hours, he

cross-examined Armstrong ruthlessly

for a further quarter of an hour about

why he was carrying packets of arsenic

in his pockets in January. Armstrong

could only say that they were for

poisoning dandelions.

Spilsbury fudged his evidence, main-

taining that the poison must have been

given to Katharine Armstrong within

24 hours of her death when she was too

weak to reach it herself — but he knew

there were cases where poison had

lingered for more than five days.

Although Curtis-Bennett, who had

not stood up to Darling as Marshall

Hall would have done, was confident of

an acquittal and arranged for Arm-

strong to have his photograph taken on

his release, the jury returned a verdict

of guilty in less than half an hour. An

appeal over the admission of Martin’s

evidence failed. Curtis-Bennett, who

thought this was one of his best de-

fences, declared he would not defend

another murder case but within weeks

he was appearing for the well-connect-

ed Ronald True.

Did Armstrong poison his wife?

Probably. There had been up to seven

possible poisonings of people in the

neighbourhood who had upset him.

And when Armstrong was in practice

in the south of England he was linked to

another suspected poisoning attempt

there. But if he poisoned his wife, the

question remained: why did he not

have the body cremated?

There was also evidence Armstrong

had forged his wife’s will in his favour.

But he had not spent any of the money

before his arrest. Perhaps it was a sign of

an overweening ego.

Guilty or not, a more profound and

worrying question is: did Armstrong re-

ceive a fair trial?

James Morton

OUT OF COURT

The cases, the chatter, the chaos:

what’s really going on in the law

Clash of the

credit cards

Londoners wandering near the

Temple this week would have been

treated to the sight of a full battle

group of barristers and instructing

solicitors steaming towards the

Competition Appeal Tribunal.

It is thought that more than 20

lawyers crowded into a hearing

room in the latest round of a

dispute between two US credit

card giants, a campaigning

consumer rights champion and a

bevy of retailers.

The £14 billion battle between

Mastercard and Visa on one side,

and consumers — represented by

Walter Merricks, a former

financial services ombudsman —

and retailers on the other, over the

biggest class action in UK legal

history, progresses slowly. This

week’s hearing showed how much

firepower the card companies are

throwing at the claim. Both have

two sets of silks and a retinue of

junior barristers, from Milbank

and Linklaters for Visa, and Jones

Day and Freshfields Bruckhaus

Deringer for Mastercard.

Freedom of City waits

Red faces at the International Bar

Association in London over the

hastily cancelled ceremony that

was set to commemorate the

admission of its president as a

Freeman of the City of London.

Sternford Moyo, a prominent

lawyer from Zimbabwe, was to

receive the honour this week in

front of legal London’s great and

good. The one glitch? Home

Office officials failed to authorise

his visa. The British government

will only grant visas from two

venues on the African continent:

Pretoria in South Africa and Abuja

in Nigeria. Moyo applied but the

paperwork was not completed

before he had to attend an IBA

meeting in Vilnius.

Sources say they suspect

cock-up over conspiracy,

suggesting that working-from-

home lethargy might be to blame.

Indeed, the Home Office failed to

reply to a request for comment.

Mark Ellis, the association’s

executive director, says: “I hope

the visa process will improve,

allowing him to receive the award

in the near future.”

Top for gender equality

Eight law firms made the cut for

this year’s list of 50 best employers

for women, published by The Times

and Business in the Community:

Addleshaw Goddard, Allen &

Overy, Burges Salmon, CMS, DWF,

Eversheds Sutherland, Linklaters

and Norton Rose Fulbright.

0 Subscribers can sign up for

The Brief newsletter. Revealed

this week: the solicitors’ firms

lined up to break the criminal

Bar’s strike; plus Good Law

Project spawns bad law project

Suzanne McKie QC, a solicitor-

barrister and managing partner

of Farore Law, acted for Ms A, a

parliamentary worker, in a remedies

hearing for bullying, sexual assault

and harassment by Mike Hill, a

former Labour MP for Hartlepool,

between 2017 and 2019. In the first

public compensation payment against

an MP for sexual assault, the Central

London Employment Tribunal

ordered Hill to pay Ms A £434,000.

What were the biggest hurdles

you had to overcome in this case?

Having to fight for nearly three

years against stubborn resistance by

Hill, knowing each day that by doing

so he was depleting the insurance

pot of damages available to my

client. That, and seeing my client

receive very little support from those

with the power to assist her.

What is the best decision

you have taken as a

lawyer? Acting on the

realisation that

having control of a

case from start to

finish achieves the

most desirable

outcome for clients.

Who do you most

admire in the law?

Baroness Hale of

Richmond [the first woman

president of the Supreme Court].

What is the best advice you have

received? If in doubt, make the

submission anyway, because if you

do not shoot, you do not score.

What is the funniest thing

that has happened in

your job? A witness I

was cross-examining

in a High Court case

involving nefarious

social evening

events kept

referring to

Spearmint Rhino as

Peppermint Rhino.

We struggled to keep a

straight face each time.

What are the best and worst

aspects of being a lawyer? The best:

I do still love the killer question in

cross-examination — but, overall,

achieving a transforming result for

a client. The worst: it can be stressful

knowing some key decisions are

yours and yours alone; and having

to say to my 13-year-old: “I’ll be

with you in a minute.. .”

What law would you enact? One

that ensures those with the ability

to pay contribute significantly more

than they currently do to the public

costs of a trial.

What is your favourite film?

The Godfather Part II. Al Pacino’s

portrayal of Michael Corleone’s

descent from good into evil

is magnificent.

Lawyer of the week Suzanne McKie QC

Linda Tsang

[email protected]

What is

that h

you

wa

in

in

so

ev

re

Sp

Pep

WWe s

straigh

WWWhat are the

aspects of being a

ision

e

woman

eme Court].