Thread by @SBarrettBar

Something difficult is facing the House of Commons - because of the Committee of Privileges

I want to explain a time we lawyers, and our most respected Court, faced similar difficulty

In 1999 5 Law lords sat as a single judicial panel - in judgment of a very unpopular man

General Pinochet - a dictator, and a charity who oppose tyranny was a party to the case

One of the 5 judges had connections to the charity (quite vague ones, but) ones he should have disclosed - he did not

The panel published against the dictator

The connection came out

That he had connections to supporting the charity was enough to amount to a display of 'apparent bias' by 1 of the 5 judges

The published judgment was set aside

All 5 judges were removed

And a new panel put in place. Who found for the dictator and he got off

Apparent bias is a very serious thing in any serious judicial process

A very eminent, very learned KC believes that test is met now with Harriett Harman - I agree

He explains why here - telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/1…

Bernard Jenkin may now face criminal investigation for a crime he considered very serious (he also may not)

He also displayed a personal enmity for Boris

Both Harriet Harman and Bernard Jenkin would, if they were judges, have to stand down

As the panel made the judgment - the judgment would be torn up

Parliament can put in place a new panel, or investigate how this came to pass

If Parliament simply ignores what has happened - then it will have no legitimacy

Lord Hoffman was, is and remains one of our finest ever judges and a true genius of my type of law

But due process - fairness - and the Rule of Law is, at least in courts, above us all

You may read the case here - publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ld…