|
JOE
LAWRENCE�S case is typical of those who � despite several court
hearings � remain deeply unhappy about the justice system. His
began with a boundary dispute over 18in of land, and ended with the
sale of his �875,000 house to pay a �90,000 legal bill. Despite
being given a rare five-judge Court of Appeal review of his case,
the businessman from Northwood, Middlesex, is still fighting to have
key questions answered, five years on. Below, he explains why he
cannot let the matter rest.
WHAT are the limits to judicial independence? Is a judge, for
example, permitted to meet privately with the other side�s
solicitors while deciding their claim? At my Court of Appeal
hearing, Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, and four other judges said
yes. Is the judge also entitled not to disclose such a meeting to
the other side � and to have work done by the claimants�
solicitors, with no charge made? Again, the answer was yes.
But the appeal ruling, in my view, was wrong in many respects. What
happened was that the judge hearing my original dispute, Judge Peter
Goldstone, held an interim hearing in October 1999, confirming the
main hearing dates for November that year. But he did not mention
that he was a client of the other side�s solicitors, nor �
during the hearing itself � that he had visited their offices for
advice on a will. I discovered this by accident, when � in March
2000, after my �permission to appeal� hearing � a file was
returned to me containing a letter he had written to the Court of
Appeal, confirming his visit.
The Court of Appeal has conceded that the letter was before it at my
hearing in March. But it did not mention it; and I have never
received any explanation why. Lord Irvine of Lairg, then the Lord
Chancellor, also knew of the meeting � the judge told him in a
letter dated December 1999 � but he too did not inform me.
My MP, John Wilkinson, is now asking Lord Falconer of Thoroton why
this meeting was never disclosed. It may have been quite innocent.
But I should have known of it. What makes matters worse is that just
before my five-judge appeal in January 2001, Lord Irvine sent a
lengthy rebuttal of my complaints to the appeal judges. They
referred to his comments in their judgment. Surely it is wrong and
contrary to the principle of judicial independence that they should
take note of the Lord Chancellor �s opinion?
The five appeal judges rejected my case. Lord Woolf concluded that
there was no appearance of bias and said that I had a �wholly
disproportionate suspicion� about the judge. Judge Goldstone�s
only mistake, he said, was to have told me anything at all about his
personal dealings with the solicitors.
There are other worrying features: neither I nor my MP can obtain any
answer as to why Judge Goldstone was put on to my case at the last
minute, after the original judge had to go on a computer course. No
one, however, will confirm that he did attend this course.
Many will say that I see conspiracy where there is none. But the lack
of transparency fuels suspicion. Judges, in the meantime, seem to
have been given a green light not to disclose when they are clients
of solicitors in cases before them � nor even if they meet them
during a trial. My advice to those considering litigation is to
assume nothing and question everything. But do not expect to get any
answers.
|