Skip to main content

Judging the judges


Mr Justice Smith



Yesterday the Lord Chief Justice made the most remarkable decision I’ve heard being made about a sitting High Court judge. He directed that Mr Justice Peter Smith must not hear any cases involving any barrister from Blackstone Chambers because of concerns of bias against them.

This all started with an article in the Times penned by Lord Pannick QC, which was critical of Mr Justice Smith. The judge did not take the criticism very well and complained to Anthony Peto QC, the head of Blackstone Chambers.  When Mr Smith did not get a reply he wrote this letter, which first sought to remind Mr Peto that he is a Silk only because Mr Smith gave him a leg up.

The now infamous letter
The letter goes on to say that Smith, J. will not support any members of Blackstone Chambers in future and does not wish to be associated with them. This can be taken two ways, first that he won’t provide references for any applications to the bench or for QC status from that Chambers in future or that he will not find in their favour in court in future. It strikes me that the former is the correct interpretation of that paragraph but it does raise a very real concern that this judge has such a dislike of Lord Pannick that he will take it out on any member of Lord Pannick’s Chambers – it is this that should give everyone very real concern about the impartiality of Mr Justice Smith when members of Blackstone Chambers appear before him.

This is not the first time issues of bias have been levelled at Mr Justice Smith. The article that kicked off the feud detailed an incident during a case involving British Airways where the airline became so concerned about Mr Smith’s bias against them that they asked the judge to recuse himself (step aside from hearing the case).

Then there was a case in 2007 when the Court of Appeal stepped in to remove Mr Justice Smith from a case where the judge had failed to recognise that his personal interests made it inappropriate for him to hear the case. In that case, the Master of the Rolls described Mr Smith’s conduct as “somewhat extraordinary” and Sir Igor Judge said, “had become too personally involved in the decision he was being asked to make to guarantee the necessary judicial objectivity”.

I was surprised to see that in the Times today there seems to be no mention of this extraordinary event – it’s reported in the Times’ Brief email as the lead story but I cannot find it on the website even when I search for it. So far as I can tell, only the Telegraph and legal blogs/magazines have even bothered to mention this story. I’d have thought they’d be all over something like this, but the truth is that stories like this require some in-depth journalism and too many in the general media are more interested in quick easy to understand stories.

Now, you might wonder why Mr Justice Smith has been permitted to continue as a judge for so long. The answer is, I suspect, three-fold. First, it is very difficult to sack a High Court judge; secondly, the courts do not like to admit that they get things wrong (although they do every single day) and thirdly there is a dearth of suitable candidates to replace anybody leaving the High Court bench.

Some will say that this is a sign we should make it much easier to sack judges. I disagree. While it may be undesirable to have judges sitting who appear to struggle to dissociate personal feelings from the case before them, it would be far worse for us to allow a system in which dismissing judges it too easy.  Why? Because whether you like them or not. Whether you agree with their decisions or not. Judges provide a strong defence for the citizenry of any nation against governments who would act unlawfully against their interests. You only have to look at countries like Zimbabwe to see the effect on a population of having a weak and subservient judiciary. It is a common complaint that judges hinder governments in their aims too often – ask Theresa May about that – but this is a compliment not a criticism. Judges are there to prevent governments breaking the law and to order them to make things right when they do. A system that allows a judge to be dismissed too easily risks breaking down this defence and allowing a powerful government free-reign over the nation. This is precisely why the judiciary are considered one of the three pillars of government and why the US are so proud that their constitution protects their independent judiciary (we’ll overlook the fact that their Supreme Court is a politically appointed entity that seems to pass judgment as much based on the political affiliation of the judges as on the law).

The senior judges can take action against judges they feel should not be sitting, but we should not make doing so too easy.

Comments

  1. I struggle to see the internal logic of this... Either he can be trusted to abide by his judicial oath or he can't. If he needs to be ordered not to hear cases involving particular barristers because of bias then clearly he can't be trusted to abide by his oath. In that case he shouldn't be a judge.

    How can issuing such an order but not removing him from the bench possibly be justified?

    ReplyDelete
  2. One wonders if junior members of the judiciary would be treated this way

    ReplyDelete
  3. Far too many judges bring their personal biases to the court room and there should be a better way to hold them accountable for breaching their impartiality than there currently is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, there is a particular District Judge who sits in east London who hates drink driving so much that he is incapable of giving a fair hearing to anybody accused of the offence, whether they might be innocent or not!

      That DJs bias is at the extreme end but you see similar bias all the time.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…