High Court judge who tried to hide names of other judges in Sara Sharif case stands rightly humiliated
A poor judge
THE High Court judge who tried to hide the names of other judges in the Sara Sharif case stands rightly humiliated.
The verdict on him from the Appeal Court represents an absolute kicking.
Based solely on personal anti-Press prejudice, Mr Justice Williams decided the media could not be trusted to know which judge handed ten-year-old Sara into her abusive father’s custody.
“He was wrong. He got carried away,” says Sir Geoffrey Vos, rightly over-ruling him and ordering the judges to be named next week.
“Courts operate on the basis of the law and evidence, not judicial speculation and anecdote.”
It is the free Press’s duty to question whether that 2019 ruling led ultimately to the circumstances culminating in Sara’s murder — and perhaps to criticise whoever made it.
We will leave it to others to decide whether a judge capable of such subjective and unfair bias is still rational enough to sit at the High Court.
As it is, this is a victory for the media — and the public’s right to know.
It’s UNtenable
WHO decides if a British court can hand a British murderer a whole-life term for an atrocity on British soil against British citizens? The British Government? Or the UN?
It’s not a hard choice. The Government we elect to make our laws should decide the scale of punishment for monsters like Southport killer Axel Rudakubana.
Except the human rights lawyers running THIS Government prefer offshoring that responsibility to an unaccountable international body.
The notoriously politicised UN opposes whole-life terms for under-18s. It is not law. It does not bind Britain.
Yet No10, advised by Attorney General Richard Hermer — a man wrong on every issue we can think of — will slavishly follow it.
The argument for never freeing irredeemably evil killers even if under 18 when they committed their crimes is strong and certainly worth debating.
It is outrageous for our Government to rule even that out — and pretend UN edicts are the definitive word.
Brexit in peril
YOU may not have heard of the concept of “dynamic alignment”. But it’s important.
This is the sinister means through which Labour intends us to be slowly reabsorbed into the EU.
It involves UK laws remaining in lockstep with those from Brussels even as they change — and was unsurprisingly rejected by the Tories, given we decided in 2016 to leave Brussels’ rules behind.
But while this Government talks a good game about respecting that vote, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds admits it’s up for “dynamic alignment”.
Don’t let them tell you it doesn’t matter.
It’s the first step towards reversing the Brexit result Labour still detests.