NO ORDINARY MAN

A Life of George Carman

Review by Phillip Taylor

THE JURY WILL REMAIN OUT

This book is an absolute necessity for those interested in the history of famous trials and equally famous advocates. So far, there have been mixed reviews with learned counsel on both sides of the argument finding fault with the priorities of the other side. I remain to be convinced that history will ever decide the true nature of George Carman as we pass down the centuries: so the jury will remain out.

Of course, there is always a danger that a time goes by history will reinvent itself. It has done so before, especially concerning private and personal matters which so often chisel the stature of a great person. Carman was no ordinary man, that much is clear. Personally, I do not care for the tittle-tattle which has the star role in so many modern biographies. I want to know of the professional successes (and failures) and how they come about in the courtroom itself. That’s why, I felt compelled to re-read the biographies of such diverse characters as Norman Birkett and Edward Marshall Hall to see how George Carman rates. Taken from the perspective of contemporary values, I see Carman as a mixture of those two and of Patrick Hastings although comparisons are rather a crude reflection here on the individual greatness of each person’s forensic skills.

There is no doubt that George will retain his very high ranking as one of the leading advocates of the twentieth century. And rightly too. George considered his most notable success to be that of Dr Leonard Arthur, the paediatrician acquitted of murdering a baby - this is according to son, Dominic, who wrote this biography. That, in itself, tells the reader much when the list of high-profile cases is examined in detail. You can pick your own favourite, but remember what George’s favourite was and its facts involving the baby… and the possible sentencing outcome.

‘KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT’

When he was a Recorder, George had the notice ‘keep your mouth shut’ clearly visible at all times. How I wish that could be compulsory! Possibly it became so in other contexts as he emerged as the ‘King of Libel’ where protagonists should have heeded his words. When the reader of the book considers newspaper reports of the trials for defamation, just weight up whether any of the victims can have any sympathy: I have sympathy for some but not others and, as they are still alive, so the names must remain silent.

And so, the jury, having deliberated on the merits of this book, will decide its fate for posterity. I suggest that it is an easy read about issues we are all familiar with. And issues which we all have our own views on concerning the individual outcomes. On thing is for sure, the courtroom has lost a truly great performer, but we all have his professional work to remember and that is just what we should remember as memories of the twentieth century fade. Thanks, Dominic, for what you have achieved - I shall mentally edit out the bits I’m not interested in, just as tabloids and soap stars will. After all, that is what we all do when we buy a book - we keep our own favourite parts and forget the rest.