Thanks @prh47bridge.
That does makes sense. I think I’m playing devil’s advocate because I think there might be an inclination in the judiciary to circle the wagons so to speak and if they can find a way to avoid questioning the findings of fact they will. I suppose, as you said earlier, it will depend if BC and NC’s pleadings give them room for that or not and that, I expect, will depend on what BCs and NCs preferred outcome is.
Later on you post that a rehearing would not be as messy and a better judge might have better hand on the reins and so they might want to go that route and it was quite clear to those of us reading TT and from those reporting from that Kemp handled Upton’s with a care that we worried was bias. At the time we thought he might just be making an effort to be seen to be scrupulous fair but now we have seen the judgment we can totally bin that.
But I also wonder if NC and BC might consider that a huge risk given how many judges seem to be captured.
That being said, risk seems to be the name of the game here because the ambition, in my view, is to create precedent that prevents individuals having to go through what SP has been put through which is why SP is a total shero.
But I am currently very cynical about the judiciary given Kemp’s sense of his own authority and think they will close ranks.