High Court judge off case over Garrick membership
A HIGH Court judge has been removed from overseeing a case involving an alleged rape victim who claimed she would be “prejudiced” by his membership of the male-only Garrick Club.
Sir Jonathan Cohen was due to hear a family court case involving a dispute between a mother and father over their son’s care, with the woman accusing the man of domestic abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour.
The court has heard that “at no stage” have the mother’s allegations against the father been determined.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has also alleged that she was raped and sexually assaulted by other men, and is appealing against a court’s decision for a male psychologist to assess the family due to being an alleged victim of male violence. She applied for Sir Jonathan to step back, claiming she would feel “prejudiced” because of his membership.
A different High Court judge decided on Thursday that Sir Jonathan should not hear the case due to his club membership, adding that the father was also a “regular visitor”. In his ruling, Mr Justice Keehan said: “The application for recusal is granted on the basis that ... Sir Jonathan Cohen is a member of the Garrick Club, the father was a regular visitor to the Garrick Club, the father’s ex-employer is a member of the club.”
The judge also said the mother had previously protested outside the club.
The Guardian reported last month that several High Court judges and dozens of barristers are members of the Garrick Club, in central London. Sir Jonathan was not named but the mother claimed he was named as a member in other press reports. In written submissions, she said: “The fair-minded and informed observer, having considered these facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias should Sir Jonathan Cohen determine the appeal.”
Responding to the reports, Sam Townend KC, chairman of the Bar Council, said it remains the choice of judges and barristers as to whether they join such institutions, but warned that “closed doors and exclusionary spaces” could create an “unfair advantage” and “it is vitally important that we retain the trust and confidence of the public”.