A world of difference between legitimate criticism of a court decision and personal attacks on judges

Mr Nigel Dharamlall accused the Chancellor of the Judiciary Madam Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Madam Dawn Gregory of being politically biased and demanded that they be ‘defrocked’. This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. Mr Dharamlall has since altered his Facebook post to something less offensive but claims a constitutional right to criticise. There is a world of difference between legitimate criticism of a court decision and personal attacks on the judges who gave that decision.

The Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles state that legitimate public criticism of judicial performance is a means of ensuring accountability. But Mr Dharamlall is not a member of the public. He is a member of the executive, a member of the legislature, and a servant of the public. He has a responsibility to uphold respect for the rule of law, including respect for the judiciary.

Tom Bingham, a senior judge in

England, said in his rule of law lecture in 2006 that “There are countries in the world where all judicial decisions find favour with the government, but they are not places where one would wish to live.”

Judicial independence, in the sense of freedom from political influence, is an essential part of a functioning democracy.