Maxwell attempt to select judge fails
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Kevin Maxwell has lost his High Court attempt to select the judge for his second trial.
Mr Maxwell asked for a judicial review, claiming that Lord Justice Phillips, who presided over the trial when he and his brother Ian were cleared of involvement in the Mirror Group pension fund fraud, should hear the next trial.
But the High Court ruled yesterday that the Lord Chancellor had "correctly" chosen a second judge for next year's Old Bailey hearing following Lord Justice Phillips promotion to the Court of Appeal.
The second trial is likely to start in October 1997, according to legal sources, and is also likely to last longer than the first, which finished earlier this year after going on for eight months.
In their judgment yesterday Lord Justice Henry and Mr Justice Sachs commented that the bid by Kevin Maxwell had caused some "surprise" in judicial circles.
Mr Maxwell, who was not legally aided for the High Court hearing, still faces three charges of conspiracy to defraud.
The Law Lords conceded Lord Justice Phillips was "uniquely well placed" to act as the trial judge because of his prior knowledge of the complex fraud case. But they concluded the Lord Chancellor was within his rights to consider the "severe backlog" of work in the Court of Appeal where all judges were needed.
Lord Justice Henry said: "The Lord Chancellor approached the matter correctly, informed himself properly, consulted appropriately and reached a decision within the discretion accorded to him."
He added: "It seems to have come as some surprise to the profession that an administrative discretion relating to the deployment of judicial manpower could be the subject of such a challenge."
During the hearing Mr Alun Jones QC, representing Kevin, argued that technically the case against his client is ongoing and should therefore be heard by the same judge.
Mr Jones said: "It is our submission the appointment of a new judge is likely to cause additional delay and public expense in a notorious case that has already been protracted, arduous and expensive.
"It has caused enormous controversy over legal aid and prompted huge public concern about jury trials."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments