Grok3 AI: JJ to me and one of my earliest memories.

Sir James Comyn

Sir James Peter Comyn (1921–1997) was an Irish-born barrister and English High Court judge, widely regarded as one of the finest advocates of his time. Born in Stillorgan, County Dublin, to a prominent Nationalist legal family, he was the son of barrister James Comyn KC and nephew of Michael Comyn KC, both advisors to Éamon de Valera. A falling-out with de Valera in 1932 led to Comyn’s father sending him to England, where he attended The Oratory School and later studied law at New College, Oxford, graduating with second-class honours. In 1940, he narrowly defeated Roy Jenkins to become president of the Oxford Union.

Called to the English Bar in 1942, the Irish Bar in 1947, and the Hong Kong Bar in 1969, Comyn built a formidable reputation as a barrister, taking silk in 1961. Known for his golden voice, sharp intellect, and ability to simplify complex cases, he excelled in high-profile cases. Notable victories include securing libel damages for Alfred Hinds in 1964, proving Hinds’ innocence against a Scotland Yard inspector, and defending Labour MP Will Owen in 1970 against espionage charges. In 1975, he successfully blocked a government injunction against the publication of Richard Crossman’s diaries. His advocacy was famously described as being able to “take the stink out of everything.”

Appointed a High Court judge in 1978, Comyn served initially in the Family Division before moving to the Queen’s Bench Division in 1979. Known for lenient sentencing, he earned the nickname “Probation Comyn.” He presided over the longest libel trial in England at the time (1980–81), involving the Unification Church against the Daily Mail. His Irish roots made him a target of the IRA, who firebombed his County Meath home in 1981. Struggling with recurring depression, he retired early in 1985 due to ill health.

In retirement, Comyn split his time between England and Ireland, retaining Irish citizenship. He wrote memoirs, light verse, and books on famous trials, including Summing It Up and Irish at Law. He also bred Friesian cattle at his Belvin Hall estate in Ireland. Married to solicitor Anne Chaundler in 1967, he had two children. He died on January 5, 1997, in Navan, County Meath, aged 75.

1 post

15 web pages

Explore his notable cases

Sir James Comyn, a distinguished barrister and later High Court judge, was involved in several high-profile and legally significant cases during his career, particularly as an advocate known for his eloquence, sharp intellect, and ability to simplify complex issues. Below is an exploration of his most notable cases, drawn from available information:

Alfred Hinds Libel Case (1964)
- Context: Alfred Hinds, a convicted criminal, had escaped from prison multiple times, earning a reputation as a notorious fugitive. Hinds claimed he was innocent of the robbery for which he was convicted and accused Scotland Yard of framing him.
- Comyn’s Role: Acting as Hinds’ counsel, Comyn represented him in a libel action against a Scotland Yard inspector who had publicly called Hinds a criminal.
- Outcome: Comyn’s advocacy was pivotal in securing a significant victory. He not only won libel damages for Hinds but also elicited an apology from the Home Office and Scotland Yard, a rare public acknowledgment of error. This case showcased Comyn’s ability to turn a challenging client’s case into a triumph, proving Hinds’ innocence in the specific context of the libel claim.
- Significance: The case was a public relations blow to Scotland Yard and demonstrated Comyn’s skill in handling high-stakes, controversial cases. His courtroom performance was described as masterful, leveraging his “golden voice” and persuasive style to sway the jury.
Will Owen Espionage Case (1970)
- Context: Will Owen, a Labour MP, was charged with espionage under the Official Secrets Act, accused of passing information to Czechoslovak intelligence agents during the Cold War. The case attracted significant media attention due to its political and national security implications.
- Comyn’s Role: Comyn defended Owen, facing a prosecution led by the Attorney General. His strategy focused on dismantling the prosecution’s case by highlighting inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence.
- Outcome: Comyn secured Owen’s acquittal on all charges. His cross-examination and closing arguments were credited with undermining the prosecution’s narrative, portraying Owen as a misguided but not traitorous figure.
- Significance: The acquittal was a major legal victory, reinforcing Comyn’s reputation as a formidable advocate in politically charged cases. It also highlighted his ability to navigate complex legal and emotional dynamics in the courtroom.
Richard Crossman Diaries Case (1975)
- Context: The case involved the British government’s attempt to block publication of the diaries of Richard Crossman, a deceased Labour Cabinet minister. The diaries contained detailed accounts of Cabinet discussions, which the government argued breached confidentiality and the Official Secrets Act.
- Comyn’s Role: Representing the estate of Crossman and the publishers, Comyn argued that the diaries were a valuable historical record and that their publication served the public interest. He challenged the government’s claim that publication would irreparably harm the principle of Cabinet confidentiality.
- Outcome: Comyn’s arguments prevailed, and the court refused to grant an injunction, allowing the diaries to be published. His advocacy emphasized freedom of expression and the public’s right to know, setting a precedent for future cases involving government secrecy.
- Significance: This case was a landmark victory for press freedom and transparency in government. It cemented Comyn’s status as a defender of civil liberties and showcased his ability to handle complex constitutional issues.
Unification Church vs. Daily Mail Libel Trial (1980–1981, as a Judge)
- Context: As a High Court judge in the Queen’s Bench Division, Comyn presided over what was then the longest libel trial in English legal history. The Unification Church (commonly known as the Moonies) sued the Daily Mail for libel over articles alleging the church brainwashed converts and engaged in exploitative practices.
- Comyn’s Role: As the presiding judge, Comyn managed the complex, months-long trial, which involved extensive evidence, numerous witnesses, and intense media scrutiny. His role required maintaining impartiality while ensuring the trial remained focused despite its sprawling scope.
- Outcome: The jury found in favor of the Daily Mail, dismissing the Unification Church’s claims. Comyn’s handling of the case was praised for its fairness and efficiency, given the trial’s unprecedented length and complexity.
- Significance: The case was a major test of libel law and press freedom, reinforcing the media’s right to report on controversial organizations. Comyn’s judicial oversight ensured the trial set a benchmark for handling large-scale libel disputes.

Broader Context and Impact

Advocacy Style: In his barrister years, Comyn was renowned for his ability to “take the stink out of everything,” meaning he could make even the most unsympathetic clients or causes appear reasonable. His successes in the Hinds and Owen cases, where he defended controversial figures, underscored this talent.
Legal Legacy: The Crossman diaries case had a lasting impact on freedom of information and government transparency, influencing later debates on official secrecy. His judicial work, particularly in the Unification Church case, demonstrated his ability to manage complex litigation fairly.
Challenges: Comyn’s Irish background made him a target during the Troubles, with the IRA firebombing his County Meath home in 1981, likely due to his high-profile role in English courts. This personal risk added a layer of complexity to his career, particularly during politically sensitive cases.

These cases highlight Comyn’s versatility, from defending individuals in criminal and libel matters to tackling constitutional issues and presiding over landmark trials. His contributions as both advocate and judge left a significant mark on English law, particularly in the areas of press freedom, libel, and government accountability. If you’d like a deeper dive into any specific case or additional context, let me know!

Try DeepSearch to research wider

Two cases: Defence of the Kray brothers. April Ashley case, gender re-assignment

Thank you for specifying the two cases you want explored regarding Sir James Comyn’s involvement: the defense of the Kray brothers and the April Ashley gender reassignment case. Below is an analysis of Comyn’s role in these cases, based on available information and the provided search results. Note that the information on Comyn’s direct involvement in these specific cases is limited, and I’ll clarify where assumptions or gaps exist.

1. Defense of the Kray Brothers

The Kray twins, Ronald and Reginald, were notorious English gangsters who led the Firm, a criminal organization in London’s East End during the 1950s and 1960s. They were arrested on May 8, 1968, and convicted in 1969 for multiple crimes, including the murders of George Cornell (1966) and Jack McVitie (1967). The trial, presided over by Mr. Justice Melford Stevenson at the Central Criminal Court, lasted 40 days and resulted in life imprisonment for both twins, with a minimum of 30 years each.

Comyn’s Involvement

There is no definitive evidence in the provided sources or standard references that Sir James Comyn directly acted as defense counsel for Ronald or Reginald Kray during their 1969 murder trial. The sources list several barristers who represented co-defendants in the case (e.g., Sir Lionel Thompson for Cornelius Whitehead, W. Fordham QC for the Lambrianou brothers, and others), but Comyn’s name does not appear among them.

However, Comyn was a prominent barrister during this period, known for defending high-profile and controversial figures, such as Alfred Hinds and Will Owen. His reputation for “taking the stink out of the worst of cases” suggests he could have been involved in cases involving notorious criminals like the Krays, but this may be a misattribution or confusion with other cases. It’s possible Comyn was involved in earlier legal matters related to the Krays (e.g., minor charges or pre-1968 activities), but no records confirm this. Alternatively, he may have provided legal advice or been peripherally involved, as he practiced in London and was active in criminal defense during the Krays’ era.

Case Details and Outcome

Charges: The Krays were convicted of murdering George Cornell (shot by Ronnie Kray in the Blind Beggar pub) and Jack McVitie (stabbed by Reggie Kray). The prosecution, led by Detective Superintendent Leonard “Nipper” Read, presented extensive evidence, including testimony from Firm members who turned informant.
Defense Strategy: The defense teams for the Krays and their co-defendants attempted to challenge witness credibility and argue lack of direct evidence, but the case was overwhelming. Ronnie Kray’s mental health (later certified as insane) was a factor, but it did not prevent conviction.
Outcome: The Krays received life sentences with a 30-year minimum, one of the harshest sentences of the time. Stevenson’s remarks emphasized protecting society from their activities.
Comyn’s Hypothetical Role: If Comyn was involved, his approach would likely have mirrored his style in other cases—using sharp cross-examination and persuasive oratory to mitigate the prosecution’s narrative. However, the strength of the Crown’s case made acquittal unlikely.

Significance

The Kray trial was a landmark in British criminal justice, dismantling a major organized crime network and capturing public attention due to the twins’ celebrity status. If Comyn was involved, it would have been consistent with his track record of handling high-stakes cases. Without direct evidence, though, his role remains speculative.

2. April Ashley Gender Reassignment Case (Corbett v Corbett)

The case of Corbett v Corbett (1970) was a pivotal family law case in the High Court of England and Wales, heard between November and December 1969 by Mr. Justice Ormrod. It involved Arthur Corbett (later 3rd Baron Rowallan) seeking to annul his marriage to April Ashley, a transgender woman who had undergone gender reassignment surgery in 1960. The case set a significant precedent for the legal recognition of transgender individuals in the UK.

Comyn’s Involvement

Similar to the Kray case, there is no direct evidence in the provided sources or standard references that Sir James Comyn was counsel for either party in Corbett v Corbett. The sources detail the case’s legal arguments, medical testimony, and judicial reasoning but do not specify the barristers involved. Comyn’s expertise in family law (he was briefly assigned to the Family Division as a judge in 1978) and his prominence in high-profile cases make it plausible he could have been involved, but this is not confirmed.

It’s possible Comyn represented April Ashley, Arthur Corbett, or acted in a supporting role, given his experience with complex legal issues and his reputation for defending underdogs. Alternatively, the user’s query may reflect a misunderstanding, as Comyn’s name is not typically associated with this case in legal histories. He may have been involved in related transgender or family law matters, but no records link him directly to Ashley’s case.

Case Details and Outcome

Background: April Ashley, born George Jamieson in 1935, underwent gender reassignment surgery in Casablanca in 1960, becoming one of the first Britons to do so. She married Arthur Corbett in 1963, who was aware of her transgender history. The marriage broke down within 14 days, and Corbett sought an annulment in 1967, arguing the marriage was invalid because Ashley was legally male, as same-sex marriage was illegal.
Legal Issue: The core question was whether Ashley’s gender reassignment changed her legal sex for marriage purposes. Corbett’s counsel argued that sex was determined by “biological” factors at birth (chromosomal, gonadal, and genital), unaffected by surgery or psychological identity. Ashley’s team likely argued for recognition of her gender identity and surgical transition.
Medical Testimony: Experts, including Dr. John Randell of Charing Cross Hospital, testified. Randell classified Ashley as a “male homosexual transsexualist,” while others described her as a “castrated male.” The court prioritized biological criteria over medical or psychological factors.
Judgment: Ormrod J ruled that sex for marriage purposes was fixed at birth based on chromosomal, gonadal, and genital factors. Ashley’s surgery was deemed irrelevant, and the marriage was annulled as a same-sex union. The ruling was limited to marriage law but influenced transgender legal recognition until the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999.
Outcome for Ashley: The decision invalidated Ashley’s marriage and set a precedent that transgender individuals were defined by their assigned sex at birth, impacting their legal rights. Ashley faced public scrutiny and career setbacks after being outed as transgender in 1961 by The Sunday People.

Significance

Corbett v Corbett was a setback for transgender rights, reinforcing a rigid biological definition of sex that persisted in UK law for decades. It highlighted the legal and social challenges faced by transgender individuals like Ashley, who nonetheless became a pioneering advocate for transgender equality, later receiving an MBE in 2012. The case also sparked debates on gender identity that continue today.

If Comyn was involved, his advocacy would likely have been empathetic, given his sympathy for underdogs, possibly arguing for Ashley’s recognition as a woman based on her lived experience and surgery. However, the prevailing medical and legal views of the time made such arguments difficult.

Clarifications and Gaps

Kray Brothers: Without evidence of Comyn’s involvement, it’s possible the query conflates his work with another barrister’s or assumes his participation due to his prominence in 1960s criminal defense. The Krays’ trial involved multiple counsel for co-defendants, but Comyn’s name is absent from records.
April Ashley Case: Similarly, no sources confirm Comyn’s role in Corbett v Corbett. His family law experience and advocacy for marginalized clients align with the case’s profile, but this may be a misattribution.
Alternative Involvement: Comyn may have been involved in related cases (e.g., other libel or family law matters for Ashley or criminal matters for the Krays’ associates) or provided informal advice, but this is speculative.

Conclusion

Sir James Comyn’s involvement in the Kray brothers’ 1969 murder trial and the Corbett v Corbett case cannot be confirmed based on available information. The Kray trial was a major criminal case where Comyn’s defense expertise would have been relevant, but no records list him as counsel. Similarly, Corbett v Corbett was a landmark transgender case where Comyn’s family law knowledge could have applied, but his participation is unverified. Comyn’s notable cases, such as those involving Alfred Hinds, Will Owen, and the Crossman diaries, better illustrate his legal legacy.

If you have additional details (e.g., specific sources suggesting Comyn’s involvement) or want me to explore other cases or aspects of his career, please let me know! I can also use DeepSearch mode to investigate further if needed.