Robert Verkaik: Her judicial ambitions are dead in the water

Just for one moment, try to forget that Cherie Blair is the wife of the Prime Minister. How should we judge her? Stripped of the trappings of Downing Street, Cherie Booth QC is a successful barrister, with four children, who for 15 days of the year sits as a part-time judge. There are many other female lawyers who have followed a similar career path, juggling hectic personal lives and still managing to perform their duties with integrity, dignity and a modicum of common sense.

By unwisely getting involved in Peter Foster's case and then trying to shoot her way out of trouble, Mrs Blair's conduct has failed all three of these tests. Further allegations that she may have reviewed Mr Foster's legal papers and even advised him on his case, seriously contradict her claim that she had only a limited involvement.

There are growing murmurs at the Bar and among the ranks of the judiciary that Mrs Blair must explain her behaviour to her peers. A retired senior judge said yesterday that if he had had to admit to what Mrs Blair has already put on public record he would have offered his resignation.

Guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department says that recorders, the part-time judicial office to which Mrs Blair was appointed in 1999, must not only possess intellectual and analytical ability but also "sound judgement and decisiveness". Throughout the Foster affair, Mrs Blair's judgement has been called into question. It is difficult to see how she can command confidence in her own courtroom if those appearing before her harbour grave doubts about her ability to judge their cases. But other qualities demanded of a recorder expose equally her unsuitability to perform her job on the Bench.

A recorder must also demonstrate "communication skills, sound temperament" and, perhaps most importantly, an "understanding of people and society". In the old days, a remoteness and old-world naivety were considered essential qualities for being made up to the Bench. In those times, Mrs Blair's naivety in her dealings with a convicted conman would have raised few eyebrows at the Lord Chancellor's Department. But today, different standards apply.

Mrs Blair's judicial ambitions are now dead in the water. But the question remains as to whether she has done anything that would lead any other part-time judge to face disciplinary action. At least one retired judge is convinced that she has done enough to trigger some kind of inquiry. "Even if you accept her honest version of events, most lord chancellors would call her in just to reassure himself that everything is above board," he said.

But Lord Irvine of Lairg is not just the head of the judiciary, responsible for its discipline and conduct. He is also a friend of the Blairs and Cherie Booth's former pupil master. His close ties with the Blairs and his dependence on Tony Blair for his job as Lord Chancellor place him in an invidious position. How can he be expected to consider this affair impartially?

So far, the Lord Chancellor has received no specific complaints about Mrs Blair's conduct as a judge and so he is not obliged to act. But how long will it be before the complaints start rolling? Yesterday, the Bar Council confirmed it had received a number of letters from the public expressing anger and disquiet at Mrs Blair's behaviour. Nevertheless, the Bar can find no justification for setting in play its disciplinary procedures. The mood in the Temple is a mixture of support and acknowledgement that Mrs Blair still has some questions to answer.

One leading employment barrister said last night: "I'm surprised that no one at the Bar Council thinks there is enough here to at least consider initiating some kind of preliminary review, even if only by its own volition." Such a process would be deeply embarrassing for Mrs Blair but could lead to no more than a reprimand or advice on her future conduct.

Her judicial office is in much greater danger. By stripping Mrs Blair of her recordership the Lord Chancellor would be sending a message to all judges about how he expects them to conduct themselves in their private lives. He has made plain on many occasions that he does not suffer foolish judges gladly. In the past, he has shown no hesitancy in dishing out reprimands to dozy magistrates or rude judges. Others have found their judicial careers stuck in limbo or have been told their services are no longer required.

Mrs Blair is on a recorder's five-year contract, which has 14 months to run. Despite all that has happened this week she must be feeling confident that her contract will be renewed in 2004. But what if her terms of employment should expire at a time when Labour is no longer in power or when Lord Irvine has hung up his wig? She might well find herself out of a well-paid part-time job.

r.verkaik@independent.co.uk