Melford Stevenson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2016.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 29, 2012 Good article nominee Listed September 8, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 8, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that outspoken British judge Melford Stevenson once described a case before him as a "pretty anaemic kind of rape" because the victim was the accused's ex-girlfriend?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stevenson was not involved in the main Nuremberg Trials, which involved Nazi leaders, nor at the subsequent trials. The case he was involved in should perhaps have an article of its own but it is misleading to link in this way. --John (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost certainly right; I'll check what the major sources have to say. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All mention of Nuremberg now expunged. The trial does seem to be sufficiently notable to have its own article, as Eck and his fellow officers were the only U-boat personnel to be convicted of war crimes after the Second World War. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenson served at the (British) Hamburg Trials, not the (American) Nuremberg Military Tribunals. The official law report of the Peleus trial is a UN document, and publicly available, so it's very easy to establish exactly what everyone did. 78.151.144.199 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's really useful, thanks, and it clarifies something that's been puzzling me, why the article claims that Eck's trial was in 1948; it clearly wasn't, it was in 1945, which makes the chronology I was struggling with a bit easier. And it's a rather a surprise to find that we don't have an article on this series of trials. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's so surprising isn't the redlink, but the fact that this particular series of trials aren't even listed at List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes. It's unusual for Wikipedia to drop the ball on a military history topic, especially on one as important and as widely researched as WWII. 78.151.144.199 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) There wouldn't be any point in having a separate Peleus trial article, since it would be an exact duplicate of Heinz-Wilhelm Eck, of which all but three sentences are about the trial. (Eck looks like the textbook Biography of a Person Famous For One Event, and probably ought to redirect either to an article on the trial or the existing article on his ship.) 78.151.144.199 (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it might be worth having a Hamburg trials article, don't you think? --John (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what else, if anything, is known about Eck it might well be a good idea to rename his article to something like Peleus affair and expand on the trial in there. And I certainly think an article on that series of trials would be worthwhile. Do we think they were officially/unofficially referred to as the Hamburg trials? Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"British Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals Held at the War Crimes Court, Hamburg" seems to have been the formal name (at least according to that Library of Congress link I posted above". Hamburg war crimes trials would seem to be the obvious title, regardless of what the "official" name was. 78.146.201.142 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that this topic is so poorly served by Wikipedia. British Military Courts held over 500 war crimes trials in Germany (Lüneburg, Hamburg, Essen, Wupperthal, Helmstedt, Burgsteinfurt, Brunswick), Austria (Kagenfurt) and Italy (Bari, Rome, Venice, Padua), from 1945 to 1949: the Belsen Trials to Kurt Student to Karl-Heinz Moehle and Helmuth von Ruckteschell and the Stalag Luft III murders to the Hamburg Ravensbrück Trials to the Zyklon B case involving Bruno Tesch to Fritz Knoechlein, two trials involving "baby farms" at Wolfsberg and Velpke (see de:Volkswagenwerk Wolfsburg and de:Ausländerkinder-Pflegestätte (Velpke)), Nikolaus von Falkenhorst, Curt Gallenkamp, doctors who injected prisoners with petroleum at the Loibl Pass camp, Nicola Bellomo, Albert Kesselring, Eberhard von Mackensen, Max Simon, and dozens of others, and last but not least Erich von Manstein. -- Ferma (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start at User:Ferma/sandbox. It need lots more work, and ‎I still need to wade through the last 10 or so volumes of the UN reports, but feel free to chip in. -- Ferma (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a great start Ferma. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement and for your small tweaks. It is coming along, but lots of work is still necessary. I probably ought to add the Far East too. -- Ferma (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC and a few sources support, MS was the trial judge for some of the Angry Brigade activists in the early 70's. Highly notable at the time. Might be worth a mention. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good shout, Leaky. I am on it. --John (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising how few good sources I could find for this, but I have done my best with it. --John (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that "he died in Foo Hospital" would be grammatically correct if we had the building name, but can one grammatically die at a geographic location? "He died at St Leonards in 1979" looks really odd to me; we wouldn't say "Ronald Reagan died at California". 78.146.201.142 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an WP:ENGVAR issue. --John (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can: "He died at Runnymede" for instance. Having said that I've got no objection to you or anyone else changing it to "in". Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions:

• The NPG seems to be the source of the much better photograph used by the ODNB, but not particularly helpful as it is not online at NPG.[1]
• Another obituary in The Independent in December 1987.
• New Law Journal, 161 NLJ 106, 21 January 2011 - in one case, he sentenced the defendant to three years, saying: "I must confess I cannot tell whether you are innocent or guilty. I am giving you three years. If you are guilty you have got off lightly, if innocent let this be a lesson to you."[2]; also, at the start of his 1945 election campaign he announced that he wanted a clean fight and would not mention that Tom Driberg was a homosexual (this is something similar in a book of anecdotes by Giles Brandreth...)
• New Law Journal, 140 NLJ 722, 18 May 1990 - he presided at the first trial of the poisoner Graham Young in July 1962 at the Old Bailey and sent him to Broadmoor.
• Law Society Gazette, 2 December 1987, p.3487 - in R v Ryan (1964) 50 Cr App R 144, at 148, he invited the jury to draw an inference of guilt from a belated exculpatory statement from the defendant - "It is, we think, clear ... that it is wrong to say to a jury "Because the accused exercised what is undoubtedly his right, the privilege of remaining silent, you may draw an inference of guilt"; it is quite a different matter to say "this accused, as he is entitled to do, has not advanced at an earlier stage the explanation that has been offered to you today; you the jury may take that into account when you are assessing the weight that you think it right to attribute to the explanation." This formulation was criticised, for example, by the Court of Appeal in R v Gilbert (1977) 66 Cr App R 237, at 244, as a distinction without a difference, with the second statement being an oblique way of expressing the first. (this seems to tie in with his statements after the Bodkin Adams trial) [3]
• 2 Crown Office Row is now Fountain Court Chambers.[4]
• He was head of chambers until appointed to the High Court bench; another barrister there - and successor as head of chambers - was Lord Scarman;[5]; Lord Bingham was there later too.[6]
• He was a "shameless performer" in court.[7]
• He wrote the foreword to The Technique of Persuasion with David Napley, published in 1971.
• The sentences in the Garden House riot case were not particularly long in absolute terms - a maximum of 18 months in prison, if I remember correctly - but they certainly were severe.[8]
• In the "anaemic" rape trial, he went on to say "This man had made a fool of himself but the girl was almost equally stupid. This practice of hitch-hiking must be stopped.’ And then gave the rapist a two-year suspended sentence - quoted here: [9]
• He conducted an inquiry into Gordon Hotels Limited in 1957, under the Companies Act 1948, with an accountant, Donald Victor House.
• Karl-Heinz Moehle was also a WWII U-boat commander convicted for war crimes (although not for his actions as a commander of U-boats). I saw an IP commented about Japanese submarine commanders who were also convicted for war crimes, including Hajime Nakagawa (I-37 and I-177) and Toshio Kusaka (I-26).

It would be interesting to know whether, like Lord Denning, there was a tendency for his decisions to be overturned on appeal. -- Ferma (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some good suggestions there, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A snippet Theodore_Schurch#Trial_and_execution. Not sure about the source [10]. Leaky Caldron 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The source is the version of this article before I started work on it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not much use then! ;) Leaky Caldron 21:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. A few extra points:

• There was an appeal in the case of Ruth Ellis in 2003, referring to his decision not to make a closing statement after the trial judge Mr Justice Havers ruling that the defence of provocation was not available.[11]
• There was a reference to the R v Balogh contempt of court case on your talk page, in which Stevenson's ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal on two grounds (that the defendant should have been tried for theft of the gas cylinder, and the defendant had not actually disrupted the court proceedings; it continues to be cited relatively recently: for example, other contempt cases in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2012;[12][13][14][15][16]
• His ruling in the Divisional Court (where he gave the leading judgment) on the need to strictly follow the instructions of the manufacturer to rely on the results of a breathalyser test (on the basis that the instructions were an integral part of the test, so if the instructions were not followed, the test was not by an "approved device") seems to have been overruled unanimously by the House of Lords in DPP v Carey [1970] AC 1072; this was referred to in a 2006 case, where the barrister said "I never thought I would ever agree with a pronouncement of Melford Stevenson J."!;[17]
• Detailed sources for the Schurch trial are difficult to find, but this looks good: [18]

In addition, it is not right to say that all of the students in the Garden House case were convicted: several were acquitted. -- Ferma (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, thanks. I misread the source cited, and I've updated the note. The appeals against Stevenson's judgements is something I've still to try and address generally, not just with the Garden House case. I'm beginning to wish I'd never started on this, far more work than I'd bargained for on an article that pretty much nobody will read when it's done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also beginning to wonder whether a separate section on appeals might be justified, as there seem to have been quite a few of them. Any thoughts? Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The info on Stephen Stratford's site looks good, but I very doubt that he would pass muster as a reliable source unless you know differently. Searching through The Times archive I've found three articles on Schurch, but none name Stevenson as the Judge Advocate. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting back to this. The article at the moment focuses on "notable" cases involving either (in)famous defendants or unguarded (some might say honest) comments by Stevenson. It would be good to add some cases that are more important in a legal sense. I am not in a very good position to tell which of his cases as a judge are most important in this sense - I'd need to do some research in textbooks and practitioner guides on criminal law - but his comments from the bench on the right to silence (rejected by the Court of Appeal) and his rulings on breathalysers and on contempt of court (which, although both overturned, are still referred to today) seem like the ones that remain important. I don't have a good source for that.

The material on Schurch on Stratford's website looks convincing - perhaps an honest transcription or summary of official reports somewhere in the National Archives in Kew (for example, under references WO 141/103 and WO 71/1109) - but I doubt it would pass a strict test of "reliability". -- Ferma (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC seems to have closed soon after my previous comments, so I'll add these additional points here instead:

• He was the Judge Advocate at the trials of Roy Courlander[19] and Roy Farran.[20] No doubt there are others, but these are notable enough to have their own articles.
• A quote from Stevenson was included in submissions in the Max Moseley privacy case at the ECHR recently. "I believe that newsworthiness is a firm realisation of the fact that there's nothing so much the average Englishman enjoys on a Sunday morning – particularly a Sunday morning – as to read a bit of dirt."[21]
• R v Balogh (mentioned above) has been called the "classic case" of a judge trying to deal with contempt of court in the face of the court; that is, an immediate threat a case about to begin or already running. (See L.Q.R. 2000, 116(Jan), 156-164, a review of Arlidge, Eady and Smith on contempt) (although the Court of Appeal ruling that this was not a contempt is perhaps the most important thing)
• In 1982, in relation to another hitch-hiking rape case, he said "It is the height of imprudence for any girl to hitch-hike at night. That is plain, it isn't really worth stating. She is in the true sense asking for it."[22][23]
• A citation for the "to some extent converted Birmingham into a municipal Gomorrah" quote is The Times, 21 April 1978, page 1, Issue 60282.

The quote from The Guardian on appeals in his cases is excellent, by the way. -- Ferma (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read through the article (was asked if I was willing to take a look at the article) and don't have much to add (I see more extensive comments have been added above). The article looks fine, the quotes from Stevenson add flavour (the ones about places to live are particularly attention grabbing) and are balanced by views detailing other sides to this judge. The lead picture is, unfortunately, a very poor scan. What I tend to do in such cases is find the best available image online that is definitely being legitimately hosted and point readers to it from the external links. I looked on Google Images and there is a nice 1970 picture of him in judicial robes with medals - it's on an Italian ebay page so I'm not sure where it has come from. There is also one of a memorial slab, so it might be worth trying to get a photograph of that. The wikilinking looks good. Not looked in detail at the sources, but they look good as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It turns out the '1970 Italian eBay' photo is in fact the same as the National Portrait Gallery one (so quite why a copy is up for sale on eBay, I'm not sure, unless you know Italian I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole). The NPG one is from Elliot and Fry and dated 1959. It is used in the ODNB article, so I think it is worth pointing out this picture to readers wanting a better idea of what he looked like then. It really is a nice photograph. The ODNB in their 'Likeness' bit refer to photographs published in The Guardian and in The Independent - if those are different and better photos, you might be able to argue fair use for those. I also looked up the location of the memorial slab (including his second wife), and details are here. If details from there (that are not already in the article) can be verified with other sources, it might be worth adding to the article. e.g. "His wife died the following year and a memorial slab to their memory is located in the parish church (St Mary the Virgin) in Rye, East Sussex". There is some document out there with some details here, but had trouble connecting to that site. The document is something called EJF Journal 9 (from the Edward Johnston Foundation) and appears to be documenting that Michael Renton did the memorial design or calligraphy, though that is getting a bit far off topic. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The possible Theodore Schurch bit has already been mentioned above (all depends whether a reliable source exists for this). There is also a mention at Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth and at the Garrick Club. Lots of sources mention tales of him sounding off at the Garrick Club, but can't find one explicitly saying he was a member. I couldn't find anything verifying the Schurch bit myself - maybe ask at the Military History wikiproject? I did dig around on Google Books, and found mention of a memorial service for Stevenson held at Temple Church, and a very obscure reference to some assistant to Peter Sellars being the child of his second wife (see here), and Stevenson apparently gave a lecture for the Medicolegal Society on 9 March 1978 at the Royal Society of Medicine titled 'The privilege of silence' (see page 590 of the British Medical Journal of 4 March 1978, can be seen here) - this may have some of his thoughts on the Adams case. Some other references to the Medio-Legal Society are in the index here. Another snippet (really too obscure for the article) is from the Law Journal of 1951 (volume 101): "THE CHRIST CHURCH LAW CLUB Lord Wright, GCMG, Mr. John Gwatkin, Mr. GWR Morley, OBE, and Mr. A. Melford Stevenson, KC, have been elected to and accepted office as Vice-President." But that is likely just one of many such positions. There are references to various after dinner speeches as well, but only the ones that others have commented on, or were formally published, are probably worth mentioning (such as the RSM 'privilege of silence' one above - it is not clear if this was published, but it is mentioned in The New Law Journal, page 1057 in volume 128). Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for taking a look and for your comments. The ODNB article says "In private life he [Stevenson] was very gregarious, often at the centre of a group at the bar of the Garrick Club, where occasionally his witticisms trespassed across the boundary into indiscretion", but doesn't explicitly say he was a member, although it's highly probable that he was. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly an extraordinary character! In the sentence "Known for his outspokenness,[24] Stevenson described one case...", 'outspokenness' has a connotation of courageous plain speaking which doesn't to my mind characterise the casual offensiveness of the case description in the rest of the sentence. Dsp13 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, some people do confuse casual offensiveness with outspokenness, but maybe in saying that I am being too outspoken? Is that even a grammatically correct sentence? Where the line is crossed between courageous plain speaking and casual offensiveness is interesting. Might be largely in the eye of the beholder, though it might also be do do with the status of the person speaking. What might be laughed at from a stand-up comic or the ordinary man and woman in the street might draw looks of surprise when said by a judge. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-reading what I said above, that was a load of rubbish. It isn't a spectrum where you cross from courageous plain speaking to casual offensiveness. It is the intent that matters. If you speak out on something, knowing that it might cause offence or draw criticism, but you do so anyway, that is a form of courageous plain speaking. If you casually speak your mind without realising that you may cause offence, that is a form of casual offensiveness. What is really interesting is the response Stevenson gave when asked about his critics (the 'constipated Methodists' retort). Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

really interesting? 'constipated Methodists' doesn't seem esp. clever to me. I suppose 'Methodist' is supposed to mean something like 'Puritan', along with a little class condescension, and 'constipated' amusingly disparage the inhibition of these little people. (Unless for him judicial decision was assimilated to successful separation of self and shit, and having his decisions overturned was a blockage which threatened this desired outcome. But no idea how the Methodists would fit that schema!) Dsp13 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm certain that Stevenson wasn't intentionally offensive, casually or otherwise, simply speaking his mind. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "It was, as rape goes, a pretty anaemic affair. The man has made a fool of himself, but the girl was almost equally stupid. This practice of hitch-hiking must be stopped." That is, as quoted in the papers at the time, Stevenson handed out almost equal blame to a rapist ('man') and the woman ('girl') he raped, and seemed almost as exercised by hitch-hiking as by rape. (I'm unsure if 'anaemic' is supposed to work as 'didn't draw blood' or 'wasn't full-blooded'.) Ho hum. This seems less than plain speaking, less than outspoken (the misogyny feels pretty inward and complacent), and more offensive the more I think about it. I don't know or much care if he intended to cause offence, or even if he foresaw he would, but I find it nightmarish. Dsp13 (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to remember that Stephenson reflected the morality of the times in which he worked. To put the "pretty anaemic kind of rape" in context rape within marriage was explicitly legal until 1991 in England, so from a judge's perspective the relationship between the accused and the victim was a legitimate point of consideration. (Remember, the question of whether "she was wearing jeans" is a legitimate defence in rape cases still comes up with depressing regularity). 92.29.57.6 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Melford Stevenson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   "Stevenson was Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller's number two" - I am unclear on the meaning here. Could you elaborate what a number two is, or what their responsibilities are?

   " It has been said that the prosecution might have had a better chance..." Can this be re-worded, so it is clearer who said it? I can't access the source.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Layout is good; referencing nicely done; lead meets requirements. I also checked for dabs.

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Spot checks reveal no overly close paraphrasing or copy vio; material in the sources backs up the material in the article. I also ran Checklinks to look for dead links and looked for referencing errors; no problems were found.

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   All direct quotations have footnotes.

   C. No original research:

   Opinions are those expressed in the sources.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

3. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've done some rewriting to address your concerns, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better, and now meets all the GA criterion. Well done, Malleus. Did the man have any hobbies or interests outside of work? Not a GA requirement, but something to think about for FA if any supporting material can be found. Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this fairly unreliable source, Stevenson was portrayed by Bernard Horsfall in an episode of the TV show Ladykillers. Is this worth noting? --John (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, not unless there was something about Horsfall's portrayal that might shed some light on how Stevenson was perceived. I've added a few bits and pieces in response to some of the issues raised at the FAC, but I think all the sources are just about sucked dry now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I was trying to do the same. What about this? --John (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this? --John (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what they might add, but I'll leave it to you to decide; I'm done with Melford for now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am just about finished too. The second might provide a (somewhat tenuous) source for one of his TV appearances; someone was asking about this at FAR. --John (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through this legal database, but although Stevenson's decisions are sometimes referred to (often critically), I can't really see anything significant there. Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post what I'd found regarding the portrayal of Stevenson in that 1980s TV episode, though using a better source (well, I hope it is a better source, the bit about that particular BFI database being closed to further additions is a bit worrying), but I see that the disambiguation pages we have on Ladykillers and Lady Killer don't include this 1980s docudrama series, so there seems little point. It is probably worth adding to the Horsfall article, so I may do that at some point. What I did find, though, was more detail on the show that led to the letter in The Glasgow Herald that John pointed out above. Details below.

• (1) Stevenson was portrayed by Bernard Horsfall in a TV drama-documentary called Ladykillers from the 1980s, the cast list is provided by the British Film Institute here. I've not looked, but more sources about this might be around.
• (2) TV appearances:
  • (i) 'Without Fear or Favour' (BBC2, 1979). Some details of this are provided by the British Film Institute here and here: "Rt. Hon. Sir Melford Stevenson, retired High Court judge, is interviewed about his life in law, and his stern and outspoken views on crime." The interviewer was Robin Day, and also present were Louis Blom-Cooper and David Napley. An example of its reception is this letter in The Glasgow Herald (29 June 1979).
  • (ii) Stevenson also appeared (at what length is not clear) in a series of Granada programmes in 1979 called 'The State of the Nation: The Bounds of Freedom': 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This series is described in this book. Stevenson's participation in this was also mentioned on page 885 in volume 101 of the BBC's The Listener: see here. More details on the TV series are here. If you have money to burn, you could even purchase that and see Stevenson as (presumably) a talking head in those documentaries. It says that that: "The Bounds of Freedom was named the Best Documentary Series of 1979 by Britain's Royal Television Society".

It would be interesting to get more details of the 'Without Fear or Favour' interview by Robin Day. It is possible there was more contemporary reaction than just the newspaper letter and the mention in The Listener, but the sources may be too obscure. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit about Stevenson's participation in Granada's The State of the Nation series in 1979, but I really do think the well has run dry now. Surely the FAC must end soon, one way or another. Malleus Fatuorum 12:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's partly why I posted here and not at the FAC. I'm happy with the text of the article, though I don't think it would be right to support the FAC when I've just convinced myself that the image shouldn't be used and should be deleted (I'm a bit annoyed about that, as I should have realised that is where that particular matter would end up, though I'm guessing not as half as annoyed as you and John might be). I'm going to leave that for a bit and see whether I can work out the right thing to do (or if it resolves itself somehow). About the documentary, the proper title of the series Stevenson took part in is 'The Bounds of Freedom', as 'The State of the Nation' is the umbrella name for the Granada investigative series that also broadcast on other issues (e.g. 'State of the Nation: Labour and the Land' in 1976, and 'State of the Nation: Parliament' in 1973). The interview by Robin Day should really be mentioned - how common was it for retired High Court judges to be interviewed on television? Anyway, I'm not going to be around much for the rest of the weekend, so I'll leave things at that. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the series title, which I'll change. It occurs to me that the State of the Nation perhaps deserves an article. As for the Robin Day interview, unless we can say something about it (rather than just that it took place), then I don't see the purpose of including it, but I wouldn't object to someone else adding it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the surname of Melford Stevenson's first wife before their marriage? His ODNB entry says "In 1929 he married Anna Cecilia Francesca Imelda, daughter of Michael Rynston, musician."[24] It seems pretty clear to me that "Imelda" was not her surname.

Also, do we know when they were divorced? Again, Stevenson's ODNB entry says they were divorced in 1942.

However, these two details disagree with Maurice Buckmaster's ODNB entry. After Stevenson's first marriage was dissolved, and Buckmaster divorced his own first wife, Stevenson's ex-wife married Buckmaster (then I believe a Major, not a Colonel). Buckmaster's ODNB entry says: "On 18 December the same year [that is, 1941], his first marriage having ended in divorce, he married Anna Cecilia Frances Stevenson (1903/4–1988), daughter of Michael Reinstein, of independent means, and divorced wife of Aubrey Melford Steed Stevenson."[25]

So, which ODNB entry is correct? Rynston or Reinstein? (Or perhaps both, if the spelling was changed to avoid German overtones.) And 1941 or 1942? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.120 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Maurice Buckmaster article states that Anna was "the daughter of a Bavarian German hairdresser brought up in East London", and cites as its source "Register of Marriages, December Quarter 1941, Chelsea, London." Also note that Franscesca has become Frances. Probably all that can be concluded is that sources are hopelessly confused on this (even the primary documents may differ in details) and until someone publishes something authoritative on this, it will remain unclear. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 promotion, includes uncited text, this could stand to be looked at... buidhe 23:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did you have in mind? On a very quick skim, the only uncited statement I can see is the uncontroversial joined the Inner Temple, of which he became the treasurer in 1972. ‑ Iridescent 15:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe with one uncited statement (of minor consequence), I believe this listing should be removed from WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see also this (which makes two)—that seems to be self-citing: Although Stevenson's direction was not in accordance with the law in 1964, Parliament introduced a form of caution under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that reflects what he proposed. His earlier suggestion that defendants in criminal trials should be forced to answer prosecution questions has not been adopted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iridescent: Are you still interested in helping to fix up this article? If so, I am happy to review it, conduct a copy edit, and post questions below about parts that need clarification/citations. I would conduct this review as part of WP:URFA/2020, and welcome your involvement there, too. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe and Z1720: One uncited statement, so I'm removing this from WP:FARGIVEN and downgrading to a note, so we can focus on more serious deficiencies. If you write up a more serious list of deficiencies, pls reinstate the WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]