Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Forgive my cynicism in explaining why Peter Smith did not retire, as Joshua Rozenberg had predicted in May 2017. I rely on the evidence Mr Rozenberg provides in his article here: Smith has been on full pay for some 16 months, while effectively being on holiday. (And hopefully not losing any more luggage!)

As Rozenberg lays out, and indeed as the previous commentary by “Anonymous” shows, the JCIO process is likely to last for months. During which period, Smith will continue to draw down his full salary from public, taxpayer funds.

Of course, if Smith had felt any responsibility, or remorse, for any wrongdoing, he may have had the moral compulsion to retire or resign.

What is abundantly clear is that, whatever the outcome of the disciplinary process, Smith shall almost certainly never again sit as a judge.

The whole JCIO process is so macabre it may as well be part of the Official Secrets Act. As Mr Rozenberg points out, such back-room manoeuvres can hardly help instill confidence in the justice system where it is an axiom that justice must be seen to be done. As the comment by Scep Tick points out, anybody could have wandered into a Peter Smith court and seen him in action. But scrutiny of his conduct is now relegated to some Underground Star Chamber.

Nevertheless, his record is splayed out in public for all to see. There is a wiki page spelling it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Smith_(judge)

And then it gets worse:
http://www.sordidlaw.net/The_Judge.htm

With all this laundry out in the public for all to see, Joshua Rozenberg is absolutely right: the findings (at the very least) of the panel must also be made public.

Your details

Cancel