Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Peter Smith J - in trouble again

For the law, regulation, and practice of the various professions and those heading out to join up.

Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby atticus » Mon May 16, 2016 9:00 pm

Whenever there is a story about a top judge getting in trouble for opening his mouth and putting his foot in it, you can be sure it is Mr Justice Peter Smith. His latest outburst appears to have led to him being told he may not hear cases in which members of Blackstone Chambers - a top commercial set - are instructed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... tter-show/
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19705
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby dls » Tue May 17, 2016 7:22 pm

It shows that the slightest inappropriate twitch from a judge can be personally disastrous.

I still think that his basic premise in the BA case was exactly correct - that the company behaved appallingly. His failure was in allowing them to manipulate him out of the job. It does not say anything at all for Pannick.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby Denning » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:34 am

This is another evidence of judicial corruption in the Courts.

When an instructing Barrister from Blackstone Chambers go before a fee-paid Deputy High Court Judge (who is also from Blackstone Chambers) they refused to accept judicial corruption or apparent bias at play.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05 ... tter-show/
But now, the prince’s lawyers, from Blackstone Chambers, claim there is “a real risk” that Mr Justice Smith showed apparent bias against them.

Lord Grabiner QC said that before the judge handed down his judgement in favour of Ms Harb last November, a newspaper article written by Lord Pannick QC – another Blackstone barrister – was published criticising the judge’s conduct in an unrelated case in which British Airways was the defendant.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby dls » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:30 pm

Denning - what is an 'instructing barrister'?

Again you find evidence of judicial corruption when there is none. It has been a fact of life, and an essential part of our legal system, since the year dot, that barristers will appear against other barristers from the same chambers and before judges similarly.

Barristers are independent practitioners. They are not as would be solicitors, in partnership. They join together to buy in the services of a clerk and the things they need to surround them.

It is entirely open, and checkable nowadays with the simplest of searches or enquiries.

This is something which has been litigated more than once.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby Denning » Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:48 am

An Instructing Barrister is one instructed under the public access scheme. It could also be one instructed under other licence schemes approved by the Bar Council such as the Bar Pro Bono Unit.

A number of Barristers at Blackstone Chambers are Fee-Paid (part-time) judges. It is improper for Barristers of Blackstone Chambers to go before their own colleagues sitting as part-time judges.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby atticus » Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:42 am

I am reading that the CA has heavily criticised Peter Smith J for his letter, and has allowed the appeal but for different reasons. I expect that there will be further repercussions for this judge.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19705
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby dls » Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:18 am

They were severely critical, but found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest bias.

Again, I think Pannick is the one who should come out of this with his tail between his legs, but that Peter Smith should have climbed above it. He allowed himself to get drawn in#

I still have no ides what Denning is on about. I would almost feel happier if I could at least work out who he thinks have behaved corruptly.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby Denning » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:53 pm

Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz [2016] EWCA Civ 556 [hearing dates 15 and 16 May 2016; Judgment delivered 16 June 2016]
39. Our system of civil justice has developed a tradition of delivering judgments that describe the evidence and explain the findings in much greater detail than is to be found in the judgments of most civil law jurisdictions. This requires that a judgment demonstrates that the essential issues that have been raised by the parties have been addressed by the court and how they have been resolved. In a case (such as this) which largely turns on oral evidence and where the credibility of the evidence of a main witness is challenged on a number of grounds, it is necessary for the court to address at least the principal grounds. A failure to do so is likely to undermine the fairness of the trial. The party who has raised the grounds of challenge can have no confidence that the court has considered them at all; and he will have no idea why, despite his grounds of challenge, the evidence has been accepted. That is unfair and is not an acceptable way of deciding cases.

53. Neither of the parties to this appeal has contested the accuracy of any of the facts stated by Lord Pannick in the Article. By a letter dated 1st December 2015 ("the Letter"), the judge wrote to one of the two joint Heads of Blackstone Chambers, Mr. Antony Peto QC, in these terms:
"I refer to our conversation a couple of weeks ago. I am disappointed not to have heard from you.

The quite outrageous article of Pannick caused me a lot of grief and a lot of trouble. I will be taking that up with the requisite authorities in due course.

You said that you would get back to me and you have not. This has meant even more trouble for me because his article has been used as the basis for several lay people to make complaints about me. Fortunately he has never appeared in front of me so his opinion is not worth the paper it is printed on. It has caused me great difficulties in challenging it but fortunately again I have letters of support from no less than 24 Silks, 4 High Court Judges and 1 Court of Appeal Judge all of whom appeared in front of me and do not share his views of my abilities and the way I perform in Court. Some of the letters have been extremely critical of Pannick's article. Others have commented adversely in terms I would not wish to print.

The article has been extremely damaging to Blackstone Chambers within the Chancery Division.

I am extremely disappointed about it because I have strongly supported your Chambers over the years especially in Silk Applications. Your own application was supported by me and was strongly supported by me to overcome doubts expressed to me by brother Judges concerning you. I have supported other people. It is obvious that Blackstone takes but does not give.

I will no longer support your Chambers please make that clear to members of your Chambers. I do not wish to be associated with Chambers that have people like Pannick in it."
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby atticus » Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:39 pm

Denny, what point do you wish to make?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19705
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Peter Smith J - in trouble again

Postby Denning » Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:37 pm

Overwhelming evidence of judicial impropriety.

Peter Smith J reveals the unwritten rules of favouritism in the court.
Lord Grabiner reveals all that is wrong with the current system in which you could buy yourself justice with enough money by using the "right person" who is closed associates to the judges. Lord Grabiner is a member of both the legislative arm and the judicial arm of Government.
Lord Dyson, Lord Justices Morebick and McFarlane who decided the appeals were colleagues of Lord Grabiner at the High Court of Justice.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Next

Return to Professions, Legal and Other. and their Students

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron