4 ms·

MI6 asked the court service to not give certain papers to the judge. The court service said “no”, and promptly informed an MI6 oversight body. It’s not great t

MI6 asked the court service to not give certain papers to the judge. The court service said “no”, and promptly informed an MI6 oversight body. It’s not great that they asked, but the system does appear to have worked as it should. Or am I missing something?

chrisseaton 6y ago
The article initially makes it sound like they broke into the judge's house and stole if from their desk after feeding their dog poisoned liver. Reality sounds more like they made a procedural request (possibly not a correct one) which was denied and they apologised.
simion314 6y ago
From my reading it seems they did not have the prerogatives or rights to ask this, it was an illegal demands but the apology was enough.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Yes, it sounds like this was inappropriate but possibly not illegal. Normally the strongest sanction the judge could take here would be to find them in contempt of court, but he let them off with a warning/admonishment which also seems fine. > IPT secretary Susan Cobb wrote back to say: "It was inappropriate for your staff to seek to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings..." > Lord Justice Singh told the room: "The tribunal's secretary acted entirely appropriately in responding the way she did and by drawing these matters to my attention. In March 2019, it was recognised that the direct communication was inappropriate."
- matthewheath 6y ago
  There was nothing illegal about their request. They shouldn't have done it, but they didn't break any laws in doing so.
  - qtplatypus 6y ago
    My understanding is that expate communication with the judge or a judges staff in a court case is not legal (unless allowed under very specific situations).
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    It not being illegal is not a good thing. Apparently evidence tampering is cool in the UK?
    - matthewheath 6y ago
      I never said it was a good thing — of course evidence tampering is utterly unacceptable. The systems here simply hew closely to expected standards of behaviour from institutions, and in any event there are a range of mechanisms to address the behaviour without needing to criminalise it.

chrisseaton 6y ago

The article initially makes it sound like they broke into the judge's house and stole if from their desk after feeding their dog poisoned liver. Reality sounds more like they made a procedural request (possibly not a correct one) which was denied and they apologised.

simion314 6y ago

From my reading it seems they did not have the prerogatives or rights to ask this, it was an illegal demands but the apology was enough.

dmurray 6y ago
Yes, it sounds like this was inappropriate but possibly not illegal. Normally the strongest sanction the judge could take here would be to find them in contempt of court, but he let them off with a warning/admonishment which also seems fine. > IPT secretary Susan Cobb wrote back to say: "It was inappropriate for your staff to seek to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings..." > Lord Justice Singh told the room: "The tribunal's secretary acted entirely appropriately in responding the way she did and by drawing these matters to my attention. In March 2019, it was recognised that the direct communication was inappropriate."
matthewheath 6y ago
There was nothing illegal about their request. They shouldn't have done it, but they didn't break any laws in doing so.
- qtplatypus 6y ago
  My understanding is that expate communication with the judge or a judges staff in a court case is not legal (unless allowed under very specific situations).
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  It not being illegal is not a good thing. Apparently evidence tampering is cool in the UK?
  - matthewheath 6y ago
    I never said it was a good thing — of course evidence tampering is utterly unacceptable. The systems here simply hew closely to expected standards of behaviour from institutions, and in any event there are a range of mechanisms to address the behaviour without needing to criminalise it.