You nicely point up with the Geordie anecdote, the difficulties with divorcing the subjective from the objective. It is ironically, the very crux of the matter, because bias is more likely to exist when the personal mingles with the professional. Despite your knowledge of Neuberger's persona, I think it a jump too far to say that you do not think people of Neuberger's experience should perhaps not be allowed to re-enter the legal profession as a 'legal expert' once retired as a Judge even if that is convention. Why Not? It is not a reason for rejecting the advice he gave which has to be based wholly on whether Fraser was biased or not. However, I did not actually know that we did not have the substantive legal advice from Neuberger to the Post Office which lies behind PO asking Fraser to recuse himself for 'bias'. Can the inquiry demand it? I understand the Fraser document upon which these allegations of bias were supposedly made, was very long. One assumes Coulson read it for bias himself. Perhaps he didn't need to. But out of interest, who did read it? Was Coulson able to ask for the Neuberger and Grabiner advice given? I must say, what I have read about Grabiner does not impress at all, while Neuberger sounds like a lovely person. That has nothing to do with his advice however. The excoriating Coulson judgement on Appeal may have been enough to make Neuberger blush (we shall never know). But elites with fine manners often use those manners to disguise their violent prejudices, even from themselves, as Andrew Hadfield points out in 'Literature and Class'. Jacob Rees Mogg is a perfect example of this type. As to the media. Yes. Networks protect their own. And, because so much other news has suppressed the kind of daily rolling headlines we might otherwise have expected on the PO Scandal, the reduced coverage has subtracted from the impetus for all documents to be laid on the table at the demand of the wider public. It is amazing what carbuncles may be drawn by a head of steam.
Richard, I agree and have been turning over the regulatory ‘gap’ in my own mind as well as the curious position on LPP.
I think a separate question is public confidence in the legal system.
Just postulate that Tracy Felstead - who received just £17,000 out of the £57 million settlement in early 2020 for her imprisonment in 2002, aged 19 - had in 2019 known that the former President of the Supreme Court was being paid God knows what in fees (surely multiples of £17K) in supporting or endorsing the PO’s attempt to derail the Bates litigation by impugning the conduct and judicial independence of Fraser J - a contention for which Coulson LJ found there was no basis whatever for in fact that had any real prospect of succeeding. Then put into the soup that the recusal application cost around £500,000 to mount. Then put into the equation that the Post Office was running every point and defending every ditch regardless of merit (eg the KEL was said by its leading counsel a “red herring”) - seen as an attempt by the Post Office to bleed the claimants dry.
Then stand back and ask what this hypothetical position does for public confidence in the administration of justice (then or now)?
Would someone in Tracy’s position not be entitled to take the outraged view that it’s just a giant attempted stitch-up by those on the inside? - Remember Grabiner telling Fraser that a ‘very senior’ legal or judicial figure had been involved - something Coulson rightly disparaged.
I wonder what Neuberger was thinking and how this was thought to serve the interests of justice.
A good read. Thank you also for publishing it to give the story some sunlight.
You nicely point up with the Geordie anecdote, the difficulties with divorcing the subjective from the objective. It is ironically, the very crux of the matter, because bias is more likely to exist when the personal mingles with the professional. Despite your knowledge of Neuberger's persona, I think it a jump too far to say that you do not think people of Neuberger's experience should perhaps not be allowed to re-enter the legal profession as a 'legal expert' once retired as a Judge even if that is convention. Why Not? It is not a reason for rejecting the advice he gave which has to be based wholly on whether Fraser was biased or not. However, I did not actually know that we did not have the substantive legal advice from Neuberger to the Post Office which lies behind PO asking Fraser to recuse himself for 'bias'. Can the inquiry demand it? I understand the Fraser document upon which these allegations of bias were supposedly made, was very long. One assumes Coulson read it for bias himself. Perhaps he didn't need to. But out of interest, who did read it? Was Coulson able to ask for the Neuberger and Grabiner advice given? I must say, what I have read about Grabiner does not impress at all, while Neuberger sounds like a lovely person. That has nothing to do with his advice however. The excoriating Coulson judgement on Appeal may have been enough to make Neuberger blush (we shall never know). But elites with fine manners often use those manners to disguise their violent prejudices, even from themselves, as Andrew Hadfield points out in 'Literature and Class'. Jacob Rees Mogg is a perfect example of this type. As to the media. Yes. Networks protect their own. And, because so much other news has suppressed the kind of daily rolling headlines we might otherwise have expected on the PO Scandal, the reduced coverage has subtracted from the impetus for all documents to be laid on the table at the demand of the wider public. It is amazing what carbuncles may be drawn by a head of steam.
Richard, I agree and have been turning over the regulatory ‘gap’ in my own mind as well as the curious position on LPP.
I think a separate question is public confidence in the legal system.
Just postulate that Tracy Felstead - who received just £17,000 out of the £57 million settlement in early 2020 for her imprisonment in 2002, aged 19 - had in 2019 known that the former President of the Supreme Court was being paid God knows what in fees (surely multiples of £17K) in supporting or endorsing the PO’s attempt to derail the Bates litigation by impugning the conduct and judicial independence of Fraser J - a contention for which Coulson LJ found there was no basis whatever for in fact that had any real prospect of succeeding. Then put into the soup that the recusal application cost around £500,000 to mount. Then put into the equation that the Post Office was running every point and defending every ditch regardless of merit (eg the KEL was said by its leading counsel a “red herring”) - seen as an attempt by the Post Office to bleed the claimants dry.
Then stand back and ask what this hypothetical position does for public confidence in the administration of justice (then or now)?
Would someone in Tracy’s position not be entitled to take the outraged view that it’s just a giant attempted stitch-up by those on the inside? - Remember Grabiner telling Fraser that a ‘very senior’ legal or judicial figure had been involved - something Coulson rightly disparaged.
I wonder what Neuberger was thinking and how this was thought to serve the interests of justice.