One of the most senior judges in Britain held up a pair of his underpants in
court yesterday as he denied exposing himself to a woman on a train.
Sir Stephen Richards, 56, who insisted that he would derive “no gratification”
from such behaviour, was answering questions from his QC designed to show
that “flashing” would be difficult while he was wearing his usual underwear.
As he held up a pair of his own black underpants at Westminster Magistrates’
Court he was asked by David Fisher, QC: “In order to remove your penis when
you’re wearing your Calvin Klein briefs, is it necessary to use one or two
hands?”
Sir Stephen, who sits in the Court of Appeal as Lord Justice Richards,
replied: “If I had a pee, I would use two hands. It is the natural way of
doing it.”
He added that he greatly valued attributes of courtesy and respect for other
people, saying: “I hope I have held those attributes throughout my personal
and professional life.”
He would never wish to cause alarm or distress to anyone, he added.
Sir Stephen has pleaded not guilty to two counts of “intentionally exposing
his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm
or distress”.
It is alleged that he exposed himself to a woman on two occasions on a train
between Wimbledon and Waterloo on October 16 and October 24 last year.
The case is being tried by Timothy Workman, the senior district judge for
England and Wales, alongside two women lay magistrates, because of its
sensitive nature.
Sir Stephen said that to expose himself would be high-risk behaviour. “I
cannot see how one could do what is alleged to have been done without the
very high risk of being seen or detected by other passengers.
“For me personally the risk would be further and very considerable by the fact
that so many people know me that are liable to use that service.”
Giving evidence in a quiet but clear voice he said that he was fortunate to
have a close and supportive family. “I am a happily married, family man and
I cannot perceive deriving any form of gratification to exposing my penis.”
He added that he believed that a judge had a responsibility of “probity” that
went beyond a person’s ordinary responsibility.
Mr Fisher asked him: “Did you expose your penis to the woman?” The judge
replied: “I most certainly did not.”
He said that he was astounded when arrested by police in January as he arrived
at Waterloo station.
He said that only two weeks ago he and his wife, Lucy, celebrated their 31st
wedding anniversary. “It is an extremely solid, fulfilling and happy
marriage. We have got a great deal in common, and that has enabled us to be
very close to each other over the years,” he said. Asked about their sexual
relationship, Sir Stephen said: “I would describe it as very loving and
mutually satisfying.”
He said that his wife and his two sons, Matthew, 27, and Tom, 25, were in the
court building to support him. All his close family — he also has a
22-year-old daughter, Emily — had been “fantastic” since the allegations
were made.
He said that he had received hundreds of letters of support from friends,
colleagues and others in the community.
He recently stood down as chairman of governors of King’s College School,
London, but he said that the governors had appointed a temporary chairman in
the hope that he would be in a position to resume the chairmanship at the
end of the trial.
His family had “all been very supportive and in any imaginable way. It has
brought home and strengthened that family bond.” Sir Stephen, who was called
to the Bar in 1975 before rising through the ranks to become a High Court
judge in 1997, went on to describe his daily routine.
He said he always aimed to leave home at 8am but sometimes was delayed by
making an extra cup of tea for his wife.
He would then normally walk to Wimbledon station and catch an overground train
into Central London for his work at the Royal Courts of Justice in the
Strand.
He said it was often “very busy” on the platform at Wimbledon and he said it
had been years since he was able to get a seat on a train.
His accuser alleges that the man who exposed himself was in the first carriage
of the train, but Sir Stephen said that it was his habit not to use the
front end of the train because of overcrowding. He denied being under any
unusual family, work or other pressures at the time of the alleged incident,
adding: “I was working hard. I have always worked very hard.”
Sir Stephen said that he could not recollect the exact details of his journeys
to work on October 16 and October 24.
Several witnesses were called to testify to Sir Stephen’s character, including
his wife, who told the court that it would be completely out of her
husband’s nature to have committed the crime.
Lady Richards briefly smiled at her husband who sat with his lawyers. Speaking
softly, she added: “He is just a wonderful, loving and lovely person and
just not the sort of person who would even dream of doing anything such as
this.”
Sir Stephen had been “just the same as ever” at the time of the alleged
exposures. She added of his general character: “He is very calm, he is very
considerate, he is kind to other people and he is very proper — it goes with
the job. He would never hurt anybody.”
She said that their relationship was extremely good, and that their sexual
relationship had always been very good.
A fellow Court of Appeal judge, Dame Heather Hallett, also gave evidence about
the bags that Sir Stephen carries and the times of his route into work.
The verdict is expected today.
