Thursday, March 04, 2010

Has Jack straw knobbled Sir Nicholas Wall?


I was going to comment upon this story in The Times today when I had a little more information but, prompted by Charon QC, I ask the question: Has Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Jack Straw knobbled Sir Nicholas Wall's appointment as next President of the Family Division, and if so, why?

The Times
speculates that Lord Justice Wall's criticism of Government policy may have caused Jack Straw to challenge the appointment. I sincerely hope that Jack Straw has not 'politicised' the appointment, particularly as Lord Justice Wall made it quite clear that he had no wish to engage in politics.

We shall have to see how this plays out, but I would have thought that Lord Justice Wall was eminently suited for the position, certainly more so than the present incumbent Sir Mark Potter, who did not even come from a family law background (but nevertheless seems to have done an excellent job).

* * * * *

Update: The Times expands on the story, here.

6 comments:

  1. Before Jack Straw starts criticising others, perhaps he should look at the stye in his own eye? The Secretary of State for Justice has the legal responsibility to ensure that Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights are guaranteed to all UK citizens including convicted prisoners. Only when he abides by the law can he then have a pop at others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. cut to the nut - bugger the talk of nobbling and just tell us: is that a really bad syrup or what?

    ReplyDelete
  3. sw: :-) I'm saying nothing...

    John: You may have a point...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simple. Three letters and an ampersand.

    P,C & S

    When campaigners are prompted to provide evidence against the secret court system, it is this case that pretty much seals the argument.

    And Nicolas Wall presided over it.

    (http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co%2Doperation/family_law_and_children%27s_rights/judgments/Press%20release%20P.,%20C.%20and%20S.asp )

    ReplyDelete
  5. Right, so a judge has a decision overturned by a higher court, and that precludes him from higher office? If that were the case, then no judges would achieve higher office.

    In any event, that case was about the right to a fair trial.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps the Batty Hattie Harperson has never forgiven him for blowing Witches' Aid out of the water with his stonking judicial review of their 29 Child Homicides propaganda.

    P.S. Happy Wimmins Day.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.