Judge attacked over wife’s pro-EU tweets
THE judge Supremewas urged Court’sto stand most senior down from a crucial legal hearing on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union after it emerged that his wife had posted a series of anti-Brexit tweets.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, president of the Supreme Court, was accused by pro-Brexit Conservative MPs of being “compromised” by his wife’s views.
The court’s code of conduct warns justices to be aware “that political activity” of a close relative could raise concerns over impartiality, although a senior source said the judge was “absolutely confident” there had been no breach in this case. The source added: “This case is about a point of law and Lady Neuberger’s views are nothing to do with it.”
In a series of tweets, Lady Neuberger, under her maiden name Angela Holdsworth, denounced the referendum as “mad and bad” and dismissed Ukip and Brexit as “just a protest vote”.
Lord Neuberger will preside over a four-day judicial hearing at the beginning of next month that will decide whether the Government can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, giving notice to leave the European Union, without a vote in Parliament.
In June, Lady Neuberger, 69, appeared to pre-empt the issue that her husband and 10 colleagues must decide, by retweeting a Remain campaign group’s message: “It seems unlikely that a PM could trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval.”
Her public pro-Remain stance last night prompted criticism from Conservative MPs, which will reignite a row over the right of politicians to attack the judiciary.
Andrew Bridgen, Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, said: “I think he [Lord Neuberger] should stand down. This is a crucially important judicial decision for our country and it must be seen to be taken impartially.”
Andrew Rosindell, the Tory MP for Romford, said: “This is embarrassing for the Supreme Court given the seriousness of the upcoming court case.
“His wife’s views are injudicious and clearly his position is compromised.”
However, a Supreme Court spokesman said: “Justices’ spouses are fully entitled to express
personal opinions, including on issues of the day. Lady Neuberger’s passing comments on Twitter have absolutely no bearing on Lord Neuberger’s ability to determine the legal questions in this case impartially, according to the law of the land.”
The source said the legal action did not challenge the referendum result.
“This case is about a point of law and Lady Neuberger’s views are nothing to do with it.”
The Supreme Court’s judicial code of conduct states: “They [the justices] will bear in mind that political activity by a close member of a justice’s family might raise concern in a particular case about the judge’s own impartiality and detachment from the political process.”
The Supreme Court source said Lady Neuberger’s comments could not be construed as “political activity” under the meaning of the code.
Lady Neuberger, a former BBC producer, is a prolific user of Twitter, having posted more than 3,920 tweets since joining the social networking site in 2013. She has 664 followers.
On May 17, a month before the referendum, Lady Neuberger wrote: “Ukip just a protest vote as, I fear, is Brexit for many.”
A week before the vote, in response to a posting by Robert Harris, the novelist, who bemoaned the referendum as “depressing, divisive and duplicitous”, she tweeted: “I agree. Referenda mad and bad.”
On June 18, she criticised the BBC over its rules on impartiality. “Need for balance can give weight & credibility to the unreliable,” she wrote, and then three days after the vote she com- plained that “too many” voters had been “misled into thinking various grievances would be resolved by leaving. They won’t be.”
As recently as September 6, she posted a link to a pro-Remain newspaper article that questioned the future of a new research institution in the wake of Brexit, declaring: “What a tragedy if this far-sighted project fell victim to Brexit.”
And last month she expressed fears that the “brain drain has begun” as a consequence of the vote to leave.
She has also launched attacks on Theresa May, branding her “wrong”, and on Nov 1 accused the Prime Minister of jeopardising higher education “by our new nasty reputation & obstinacy … in insisting temporary foreign students treated as immigrants”.
In October she retweeted this message: “So many lies, so much ignorance. It’s the poorest will suffer most from Brexit.”
Anti-Brexit campaigners won a High Court battle earlier this month that forces Parliament to vote first on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union before Article 50 can be triggered by Mrs May.
At the time, Tory MPs, including Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, criticised the judges. However, Liz Truss, the Justice Secretary, then spoke out attacking the judges’ critics, after a statement by the Bar Council, which represents 15,000 barristers, urged her to condemn “serious and unjustified attacks on the judiciary”.
The Government has appealed against that decision and the Supreme Court will begin hearing the case on Dec 5.
Mrs May had intended to invoke Article 50 by March, but defeat in the Supreme Court could delay that and might prompt her to call a snap general election.
The Supreme Court ruling is probably the most significant and controversial its judges have had to make since its inception in 2009, and the well-aired views of Lady Neuberger will add to the scrutiny ahead of the vote.