Thread by @Robin_C_Douglas

Braverman was hauled over the coals for this at the Bar Council meeting yesterday.

People who aren't lawyers might not immediately realise how badly this process has been corrupted, so let me try to explain.

#Brexit

/1

If the Government wants to make use of external barristers, it has a system of "panels" (or lists) of people who are approved for this purpose.

Braverman will know this because she used to be on one, although of course she was only on one of the lower ones.

/2

At the top of this system is Sir James Eadie QC, the First Treasury Counsel, who takes on the Government's most important cases. He is one of the leading lawyers in the country.

If you watched video footage of the Miller cases, you might recognise him.

/3

Yet Ms Braverman decided not to instruct Eadie on this matter.

Or any other of the panel counsel.

This goes against the normal rules, and raises the question: why not?

/4

The counsel whom she *did* instruct are an unimpressive bunch.

Richard Ekins is a zealous supporter of the Govt to the point of being a bit of a crank about it. An Oxford academic lawyer, he has never fought a single case in court and has publicly advocated breaking the WA.

/5

Richard Howell is a very junior barrister (first year) who worked for Vote Leave and is a mate of Dominic Cummings.

I haven't come across Guglielmo Verdirame, but I understand that he too is on record as a political supporter of Brexit.

/6

So Braverman bypassed the normal system. Not least, she bypassed Sir James Eadie QC, a man at the top of the profession whose role it is to do this stuff.

In favour of people who are... er, not at the top of the profession. But *are* politically partisan and know Cummings.

/End