Sir Rigby Philip Watson Swift (7 June 1874 – 19 October 1937) was a British barrister, Member of Parliament and judge.

Born into a legal family, Swift was educated at Parkfield School before taking up a place in his father's chambers and at the same time studying for his LLB at the University of London.

In 1921 he heard the "Sinn Féin case", an application of the controversial Treason Felony Act 1848, and his decision in Nunan v Southern Railway Company [1923] 2 K.B.

703 was an important one in relation to exclusion clauses and liability, and was referenced by Lord Hanworth in the later case Thompson v LMS Railway.

[3] After some time spent with a governess, Swift began formal education at the age of 10 when he attended a small preparatory school.

As well as the practical work in his father's chambers, Swift also studied at the University of London, gaining an LLB in January 1895 before he was 21, and frequently spoke at the Liverpool Law Students Society, where he debated with Henry McCardie.

[9] His work increased over the next two years, and in 1897 he acted as a junior for John Bigham QC, later a High Court Judge.

[11] His first murder case was in 1899, and although he lost he was commended by the judge (Mr Justice Wills) for the "great taste and propriety" of his final argument.

This soon turned out to be a wise move - many of Thomas Swift's clients chose to stay on with Rigby, and in 1899 he defended the United Alkali Company from a lawsuit resulting from a large explosion at their chemical plant in St Helens.

From 1920 to 1921 Manchester had been targeted by IRA forces who mounted an incendiary campaign against the city, setting fire to over 40 buildings between November 1920 and April 1921.

This was the first time that anyone had been charged simply for being a member of Sinn Féin, and was seen by the British government as a landmark case,[31] with the Attorney General Sir Gordon Hewart acting as the prosecution.

The argument of the defence was a weak one, and was not accepted by the defendants themselves, who argued that they were prisoners of war and that their actions were therefore not covered by normal criminal law.

[33] Neither Swift or the jury were convinced, however, and after being found guilty the men were sentenced to between three and fifteen years of penal servitude.

The widow argued that the exclusion clause was only binding on her husband when he was alive, and that it did not affect parliamentary statute such as the Fatal Accidents Act.

[36] Swift decided that while the ticket bound Nunan, his widow was right in saying that the clause did not affect parliamentary statute, and he awarded her £800.

[39] His comments were widely reported by the press, and he apologised the next day, saying that he was simply disgusted by a system in which one party had to pretend to commit adultery to get a divorce.

[40] Shortly before his death, in March 1937 Swift presided at the trial at Warwick Winter Assizes of Frederick Nodder, who was charged with abducting Mona Tinsley, aged 10, who had not been seen since leaving school on 5 January 1937.

His conduct of the trial was marked by bad-tempered interruption, sarcastic comments (chiefly directed at defence counsel Maurice Healy), and unjustified complaints that documents had been withheld.

[41] When the jury convicted, Swift in passing sentence referred to the continued mystery about Mona Tinsley's fate: "What you did with that little girl, what became of her, only you know.

"[42] Three months later Mona Tinsley's body was recovered from a nearby river, and Nodder was subsequently convicted of murder and hanged.