Legal Village

The fourth estate versus Cherie Blair

Posted 19/05/2008 by Mike Semple Piggot

"Bye, I won't miss you, said Cherie Blair as she left Downing Street - or, to be more accurate, as Tony Blair left Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister.

Since the publication of her memoirs Speaking For Myself, it has not been possible to pick up a newspaper without seeing a picture of Cherie Blair or read a story about her greed. Last week we had The Evening Standard putting the boot in to Cherie in her guise as Cherie Booth QC - or rather, we had retired judge Gerald Butler QC and an anonymous shadowy figure putting the boot in.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION
'Judge Cherie must resign over diaries' screamed the headline. Cherie Booth QC is a recorder. She is a member of Matrix Chambers in London.

The Evening Standard puts the case for the prosecution and puts former Judge Gerald Butler on the witness stand first:

'Gerald Butler QC, who was the senior judge at Southwark Crown Court for 13 years, said: "What she has done is not appropriate for somebody who sits as a recorder. I don't think she should continue to sit as a recorder. If she wants to tread this path of making money by ourtrageous comments that is up to her, but I don't think this is a job for a judge. It shows a complete lack of any kind of decency. It is the kind of conduct which demeans the legal profession. It is altogether disgraceful but nothing less than I would expect from her. I would have thought there is no chance of her becoming a senior judge."'

Leaving aside the legal profession's standing in the eyes of the public for making vast piles of money, the Standard article did not reveal what was in Butler's mind in relation to "what she has done" so we are none the wiser, in relation to the 'it' - in terms of (a) 'It shows a complete lack of decency' and (b) 'It... is altogether disgraceful'.

One can only surmise that 'it' is in relation to her memoirs, which may or may not have been read in full by Butler. This is by no means clear from the context in the article. I'm just an 'ever so humble' reader and have perhaps misread it, misconstrued the intent? I accept, given I have no desire to aspire to papal office, that I am fallible.

Upon reflection, I have come to the view that many people, faced with the prospect of making millions in the latter part of their careers through biography and other press writing, may well find the attractions of a judicial appointment unappealing. It is fortunate, for the future of our legal system that (a) there cannot be many men and women in a position to write memoirs after being the wife/husband/'consort' of a prime minister and able to profit by writing memoirs and (b) be in the frame for an appointment as a 'senior' judge or otherwise.

A view (unofficial?) from the Bar Council: the Standard then calls John Cooper, a senior criminal barrister who sits on the Bar Council. It reports that Cooper did not want to comment on the claims against Mrs Blair but added: "One of the important factors in being a judge is being able to exercise judgement and part of that judgement is being trusted with confidential material. One has to be very careful, in my view, about what one exposes to the public gaze."

(Indeed, after all that trouble last year about a judge - who was acquitted - being brought to account for exposing matters to the public gaze - it is imperative that nothing inappropriate should be so exposed...)

There follows a statement that no High Court judge has published memoirs before retiring and another statement "the most important thing about judges is they must prove to be people who can exercise judgement."

(As a mere teacher of laws, part-time commentator and, a recent activity, reviewer of restaurants, I could not agree more with this aspirational statement. It has, however, been my experience, reading judgments over the past 30 years, that judgement, judgments, justice and common sense are not always in bed together - if you forgive this rather 21st century metaphor.)

Although the Standard is careful to note that Cooper was not prepared to comment on Mrs Blair, the fact is this statement was printed in an article pillorying her in the capacity of Cherie Booth QC.

The Standard expresses the view that judges can be removed by the Lord Chief Justice "if their conduct is seen to be putting a the reputation of the judiciary at risk". Constitutional lawyers may be able to shed some light on the technical accuracy of this last statement. I don't happen to have the latest edition of Halsbury to hand... althought Halsbury's Laws is never far from my fondest thoughts.

The third witness for the prosecution is a shadowy, unnamed figure who is, however, a "senior lawyer and Opposition politician".

The shadowy figure entertains the baying crowd in the pit by asserting that he did not believe Mrs Blair should resign as a judge - unless the book contained "revelations about the judiciary". This, of course, predicates that the shadowy figure has not, in fact, read Mrs Blair's book. I gather the book is actually available to the public on Friday, 16 May.

However, as the baying crowd fell silent - that awful silence where the crowd may turn at any moment against the speaker - the source continues: "There was a stage when she was thought of as a future High Court judge but in terms of character I think she blew her chances a long time ago. This book is an act of political revenge. It has nothing to do with her work as a barrister or recorder."

Maybe Shadowy figure has read the book after all. Neither he nor the Standard appear to be absolutely sure given the statements made extracted above.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE
A spokesman for the Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers' conduct, said: "This issue has not been raised with us."

The Standard did, to be fair, report: "A source at the Bar Council said that while Mr Blair was Prime Minister, complaints about her had been received on a regular basis but were all groundless, and no disciplinary case was ever brought against her."

JUDGMENT
Informed judgment may well follow. But for the present at least, until the press finds another fish bleeding in the water, it is open season on Mrs Blair. This may well be fair given her political apostasy, her apparent greed, her behaviour in the past - but it hardly seems fair for her reputation as a lawyer to be impugned by a leading metropolitan newspaper in this way and, frankly, unless Butler - however good a judge he was - has read the book, is prepared to take the matter up with the Bar Standards Board and is able to support his statements as reported by the Standard, he may have been better served in his retirement not raising this in quite so public a way.

However, I also take the view that Cherie - wife of Tony Blair and now writer - can hardly complain about press attention. She has brought that on herself by her past escapades and by publishing her memoirs - indeed, rushing them out to add to the pressure on the beleaguered current tenant of Number 10, Gordon Brown.

I declare at once that I have not read Mrs Blair's biography. I shall borrow Sir Maurice Bowra's aphorism, which I reel out at such times: "I shall lose no time at all in doing so."

The author also blogs as Charon QC