Interesting article - in trying to download the submissions you helpfully linked to, I found that they are saved on Scribd which requires a separate paid subscription. Would it be possible to host linked files on a platform that is not paid? (e.g. Google Drive - or perhaps even Substack?)
Thank you and I was interested to read this article, but troubled that it seems to be a disciplinary offence for a barrister to criticise a judge. Surely judges should have broad enough shoulders to accept criticism whether or not they think it justified, and sometimes they may learn from it. What does it say about freedom of speech in this country and surely that is one of the human rights protected by the ECHR so it should be considered in addition to Articles 6 and 14?
Proudman's freedom of expression is certainly relevant, but it's important to note that Article 10 explicitly allows for the right to be limited for the purposes of 'maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary'. I don't know enough about the facts of this case, but as a general rule I doubt it would breach article 10 simply to hold practicing lawyers to a higher standard when it comes to statements that cast doubt on judicial competence/impartiality etc.
I have wondered for a long time when this was going to happen.
Apart from the charges themselves, why has the BSB taken two and a half years to bring these charges when the evidence was available from April 2022 ?
Another instance of the BSB being unfit for purpose
Interesting article - in trying to download the submissions you helpfully linked to, I found that they are saved on Scribd which requires a separate paid subscription. Would it be possible to host linked files on a platform that is not paid? (e.g. Google Drive - or perhaps even Substack?)
As far as I know, you can read them and download them without charge. I pay a substantial that you don’t have to.
Thank you and I was interested to read this article, but troubled that it seems to be a disciplinary offence for a barrister to criticise a judge. Surely judges should have broad enough shoulders to accept criticism whether or not they think it justified, and sometimes they may learn from it. What does it say about freedom of speech in this country and surely that is one of the human rights protected by the ECHR so it should be considered in addition to Articles 6 and 14?
Proudman's freedom of expression is certainly relevant, but it's important to note that Article 10 explicitly allows for the right to be limited for the purposes of 'maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary'. I don't know enough about the facts of this case, but as a general rule I doubt it would breach article 10 simply to hold practicing lawyers to a higher standard when it comes to statements that cast doubt on judicial competence/impartiality etc.