'To ‘do’ someone clearly refers to sexual intercourse, and for a senior male lawyer to ask a younger clearly female lawyer about this aspect of her intimate life is a breach of professional practice’ said Lord Justice Smythe prior to an appeal court ruling.
He continued ‘It implies that the complainant is the sexual ‘doer’ in an unspecified act of congress, prompting inappropriate speculation among those who heard the question about how she might ‘do’. Indeed, the complainant may well take a submissive role in this aspect of her no-doubt fragrant if occasionally tearful boudoir dealings. She may well choose to take the done-to role rather than being the doer, as the defendant scurrilously alleges. Indeed, there may be a playful aspect of pre-negotiated mutual action involved. These are matters entirely for her and others not present, and for this officer of the court to create sensational albeit imaginary images in this respect is pernicious. I must add that this is one of the most serious cases ever to come across my desk.’
‘The complainant’s aesthetic taste related to these tender and vulnerable if not heated moments, behind softly fluttering lace curtains, is nothing whatsoever to do with the defendant. His defence is that the question was asked innocently for the purposes of social lubrication. Others may think differently. They may believe his object was to unveil, if not probe the complainant's delicate fancies. And he did so in front of impressionable junior staff, who would then be prompted to imagine the complainant in entirely non-legal attire. This kind of inadequate decolletage, albeit in legal black, would by its nature be insufficient for the complainant to mount a defence. The intensely graphic images inspired by these reckless and offensive words could inflame thoughts which might contaminate junior counsel's professional judgement. In my mind, this is tantamount to peversion of the course of justice.’
Lord Justice Smythe adjourned the proceedings so he could re-visit the evidence in private, but he warned the defendant he was seriously considering a ‘striking off’.