Formal reprimand for Bathurst-Norman

Caroline Lucas, MP and Green leader, declared her support for seven acquitted campaigners who caused £180,000 damage to an arms factory, backing their direct action.

Now the judge whose summing up was investigated for bias has been issued a formal reprimand. Active Green member Isca Stieglitz was one of those who complained. She posts the response in full on her blog at the Jewish Chronicle.

“I am writing on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to inform you of their decision in relation to your complaint against His Honour Bathurst-Norman.

You complained that the Judge’s comments during his summing up to the jury displayed a personal bias, that he was not impartial and that he swayed the jury improperly.

A number of complaints were received on this matter and the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have decided that they should be resolved in accordance with Regulation 26(1)(e)(i) of the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006 (as amended) on the basis that the complaints are substantiated wholly or in part. The Lord Chief Justice has exercised his disciplinary powers and, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, has issued the Judge with a formal reprimand. They found that a number of observations made during the summing up did not arise directly from the evidence at trial and could be seen as an expression of the judge’s personal views on a political question. This was an error.

In coming to this decision the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have considered the details of the complaints made, the comments of His Honour Bathurst-Norman and the advice of the Nominated Judge. The decision does not affect nor seek to comment upon the outcome of the trial and the verdict reached by the jury in the case.”

Given that the purpose of a summing up is to direct the jury’s attention to the most important aspects of a case, we can reasonably suppose that Judge Bathurst-Norman influenced the jury to some extent. And as Jonathan Hoffman observes, all of this has cost the public a lot of money.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Formal reprimand for Bathurst-Norman

  1. bob homous

    So much for the independence of the British judiciary.

    [content about motivations behind the ruling, censored by moderator, because of anti-Israel bigotry.]

    If judges are not allowed to speak the truth about this issue, then those defending the Palestinian cause will only conclude that accountable actions are futile, and will justifiably take law into there own hands, by avoiding the legal process altogether.

    In other words, these actions will continue but no-one will trust the system enough to stick around and be arrested afterwards.

    Thanks OJC!

    Reply
    1. Mira Vogel Post author

      “So much for the independence of the British judiciary.”

      The British judiciary are subject to governance like any other institution.

      “those defending the Palestinian cause”

      You know that defending-the-Palestinian-cause is a mantle various causes assume, which they feel gives license to act as they wish. This is why we have a universal rule of law. Your hatred of Israel leads you to argue for exceptions to the rule of law where Israel is concerned.

      Your threats are quite in character with your views.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s