DOZENS of criminals could lodge appeals against their convictions after the Court of Appeal overturned a third ruling by a judge who has been criticised for his grumpy attitude in court.

Judge Medawar, 72, has not formally been disciplined but has in effect been put out to graze after a series of rulings that trials over which he presided were unfair because of his crotchety and apparently biased comments.

Yesterday’s ruling by the Court of Appeal was the third case in days in which a conviction was quashed as unsafe in a trial presided over by Judge Medawar — causing in total an estimated £100,000 worth of wasted court time.

But it emerged yesterday that the judge has previous form. Only last December he was rapped over the knuckles by the Court of Appeal for his distinct lack of courtesy, and two other convictions were quashed and a retrial ordered. In February this year he aroused fury among lawyers when he threw out a child sex-abuse case as trivial and a waste of police time.

One lawyer predicted that as a result of the latest ruling, scores of criminals in prison would lodge appeals against the judge.

He said: “He would have cracked through about 30 trials a year and anyone who did not appeal before might think it now worth a go on the basis of his rudeness. Rude, brusque judges really went out in the 80s, so it’s quite unusual. Today’s senior coterie of modern judges are all extremely polite and diplomatic.”

In recent months Judge Medawar has been sitting chiefly on civil matters. But yesterday there was even a challenge to one of his civil rulings, in a case involving a claim over rent arrears of £55,000, although the appeal was unsuccessful.

A spokesman for the Lord Chief Justice’s office could not comment on whether the judge had already retired. “All we can say is that as a circuit judge appointed before the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 came into force, the judge’s compulsory retirement date would be within the completed year of service from when he attains the age of 72.”

But the spokesman said that the Court of Appeal’s comments would be referred to the Presiding Judges of the South Eastern circuit.

All three trials in which convictions by Judge Medawar have been quashed took place at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

The appeal judges ordered a retrial in the case of Patrick Bryant, 23, of Islington, North London, who was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and affray.

Trevor Burke, QC, for the defence, told the appeal judges that Judge Medawar had become irritated at the length of the trial and when defence points were raised there had been “rolling of the eyes, shaking of the head and throwing down of the pen”.

In quashing the conviction as unsafe and ordering a retrial, Lord Justice Judge said that Judge Medawar had failed to maintain neutrality.

Last week the same judges quashed the conviction of Angela Lashley, 45, a teacher from Islington, who was found guilty last September of theft and obtaining property by deception. They did not order a retrial.

During her trial Judge Medawar made comments to defence counsel telling her not to be ridiculous or silly, and of talking rubbish.

Trevor Dickens, 39, from Edgware, North London, was jailed for five years and nine months in February for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The judges quashed the unsafe conviction, but ordered a retrial, after Judge Medawar described his plea of self-defence as rubbish.

In quashing Mr Bryant’s conviction yesterday, Lord Justice Judge said: “We do not think it can be right for a judge ever to give the impression that he favours the prosecution case against that of the defendant.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Milk: do we need a dairy godmother?
• DIY: the women doing it for themselves
• First double portrait of Princes unveiled