Judge Arbuthnot recused herself last year over conflicts of interest, why not now? Archived Message
Posted by margo on June 18, 2019, 9:45 am, in reply to "Even if the UK followed its own laws on JA, it still wipes its arse with them over Israel and Syria."
Is British justice completely broken - as in the worst African examples - or does it work in parts? The recusal of Judge Arbuthnot - with her blatant conflict of interests - is entry-level stuff - the line between a functioning democracy and a banana state. Surely this very basic part of British law is in working order - or is even that broken? What's even more damning about Baroness Arbuthnot's refusal to recuse ... is that she's willingly recused herself before due to her husband's very powerful contacts - in the Uber Case of 2018! Uber Judge Steps Aside / The Guardian LINK https://www.dumptheguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/uber-judge-steps-aside Why aren't Assange's lawyers arguing this point more meaningfully? Can they not appeal her refusal to bend to recusal? Previous Message The UK Law gazette on Recusal extract The doctrine of judicial recusal dictates that a judge may recuse himself from proceedings if he decides that it is not appropriate for him to hear a case listed to be heard by him. A judge may recuse himself when a party applies to him to do so. A judge must step down in circumstances where there appears to be bias or ‘apparent bias’. Judicial recusal is not then a matter of discretion. The test for determining apparent bias is this: if a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased, the judge must recuse himself (see Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at [102]). That test is to be applied having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The doctrine is underpinned by important public policy reasons. The judiciary must ensure that it remains independent and that it is seen to be independent of any influence that might reasonably be perceived as compromising its ability to judge cases fairly and impartially. As Arden LJ put it in the recent case of Mulugeta Guadie Mengiste and Other v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray and Others [2013] EWCA Civ 1003, ‘to maintain society’s trust and confidence, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done’. This note is only concerned with the Court of Appeal’s consideration of the doctrine of judicial recusal in Mulugeta. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/judicial-recusal/5038104.article
|
Message Thread:
- UK's Crown Prosecution Service anti-Assange bias - Poster123 June 17, 2019, 9:54 pm
- Re: UK's Crown Prosecution Service anti-Assange bias - margo June 17, 2019, 10:16 pm
- Ecuador to allow US investigators to question Assange's friend, now detained in that country - margo June 17, 2019, 11:18 pm
- Chelsea Manning now being financially ruined as well - margo June 18, 2019, 12:30 am
- Co-operation and collusion between US and UK: fast-track extradition? Dangerous turn (video) - margo June 18, 2019, 12:44 am
- Tweets now written up in an article - Poster123 June 18, 2019, 10:48 am
|
|