This description is letting the politicians off the hook
"Last month, the lady chief justice criticised the prime minister for *rejecting a judgment* to which the government was a party, arguing that the proper way for ministers to challenge their defeats in the courts was through the appeal process."
Lady Carr in fact both the PM *and the Leader of the Opposition* for misrepresenting the judgment before attacking it, and attacking the judge. This is much more than rejecting a judgment (which is in itself not appropriate absent an appeal or declaration of intent to change the law)
You'll see I linked to my report of the lady chief justice's evidence to the Lords constitution committee, in which Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the Hill was asked by Lord Strathclyde CH, the committee chair, why she had been “seemingly so tough” on the prime minister and the leader of the opposition at her annual news conference last week.
“No one is saying that there should not be healthy, robust, open debate both in and outside parliament,” Carr replied, “including criticism, if necessary, of judgments.
“However, criticism of a judgment — debating a judgment — is one thing. Inaccurate reporting and the abuse of judges who cannot speak out to defend themselves is another.”
And you also fairly reported (https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/keep-out-judge-tells-mps) her original remarks that make clear the fact that Starmer (who really should know better) and Badenoch (who is also a qualified lawyer) were relying on an "inaccurate newspaper report".
Let's name and shame. It was the Daily Telegraph who did not merely make a a mistake. They deliberately misreported and distorted a court judgment to whip up anti-immigration feeling. This is no better than the worst of the internet.
This description is letting the politicians off the hook
"Last month, the lady chief justice criticised the prime minister for *rejecting a judgment* to which the government was a party, arguing that the proper way for ministers to challenge their defeats in the courts was through the appeal process."
Lady Carr in fact both the PM *and the Leader of the Opposition* for misrepresenting the judgment before attacking it, and attacking the judge. This is much more than rejecting a judgment (which is in itself not appropriate absent an appeal or declaration of intent to change the law)
Fair point.
You'll see I linked to my report of the lady chief justice's evidence to the Lords constitution committee, in which Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the Hill was asked by Lord Strathclyde CH, the committee chair, why she had been “seemingly so tough” on the prime minister and the leader of the opposition at her annual news conference last week.
“No one is saying that there should not be healthy, robust, open debate both in and outside parliament,” Carr replied, “including criticism, if necessary, of judgments.
“However, criticism of a judgment — debating a judgment — is one thing. Inaccurate reporting and the abuse of judges who cannot speak out to defend themselves is another.”
Thanks
And you also fairly reported (https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/keep-out-judge-tells-mps) her original remarks that make clear the fact that Starmer (who really should know better) and Badenoch (who is also a qualified lawyer) were relying on an "inaccurate newspaper report".
Let's name and shame. It was the Daily Telegraph who did not merely make a a mistake. They deliberately misreported and distorted a court judgment to whip up anti-immigration feeling. This is no better than the worst of the internet.
It is shame that the unregulated nature of the press has led a once respected newspaper (which once had reasonable columns like this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/11/duchess-sussex-ruling-helps-judges-keep-developing-uk-privacy/) to become a extremist conspiracy-theory peddling tabloid.
Thank you. Times change, eh?