My concern which has been solidifying with each case is that the lay members are unscrutinised but have an outsized impact on the tenor of the result. They don’t quote the law themselves but when they’ve all decided ‘she’s guilty drown the witch’ it falls to the Judge to go get the evidence to get the witch firmly dunked.
In the Sara Morrison v BFF it was eventually found that the panel member was calling herself a Professor despite having left uni at 16. She also was in a video calling herself an employment judge.
She’d liked hastagged LGBTQ pages saying ‘fuck the DUP’ at Pride. She was a leader in women’s groups who are trans captured. A recusal application was made re bias. And the Judge said nothing to see here and she slunk off the panel with fibromyalgia.
Is that panel member still sitting? What is anyone doing about that?
In each panel I have looked at or Judge there is good evidence for a strong inference of bias.
So much so in Kelly and Peggie they have to contort the law to fit their narrative. It would be laughable if it weren’t so grave.
We are a nation founded on the Rule of Law and if justice is denied by the very people supposed to be held to the highest standards as servants of the law what hope have we.
I do despair at the clear bias, and dare I say it corruption in the law in these cases.