Lord Justice Leveson has loftily dismissed any suggestion that his inquiry into Press Standards may have been undermined by revelations of an affair between two leading lawyers.
His Lordship has insisted in a letter to a Tory MP that there is ‘simply no room’ for a ‘breach of confidence or other conspiracy’ as a result of the relationship between Carine Patry Hoskins, a member of his legal team during the inquiry, and the celebrities’ barrister David Sherborne, who regularly tore into the Press.
So that’s all right then. Lord Justice Leveson is certain all is well. We can relax. Whatever his occasional failings may be, the judge is a man of bottomless probity in possession of a fine forensic mind. If he is satisfied, so should we all be.
Carine Patry Hoskins and David Sherborne QC were on opposing legal teams of the inquiry, but maintain they were not a couple until after the inquiry was over
Well, I hate to be difficult, but I can’t rid my mind of the thought that he may have been rather too hasty in dismissing reasonable concerns. In so doing he has relied upon a version of events which he cannot be absolutely certain is entirely correct.
This version of events, provided by David Sherborne and Carine Patry Hoskins, is that their affair did not start until last November, several months after evidence at the inquiry had ended at the beginning of August.
Of course they were on different sides during the inquiry — Mr Sherborne robustly representing aggrieved celebrities and victims of the Press, and Ms Patry Hoskins (acting as a junior counsel for Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry), who was supposed to be impartial. But the suggestion is that there could be no conflict of interest because they were at that time not having an affair.
Lord Justice Leveson has loftily dismissed any suggestion that his inquiry into Press Standards may have been undermined by revelations of an affair between two leading lawyers
Yet it has emerged that, only a few days after public hearings at the inquiry had ended, Mr Sherborne and the still-married Ms Patry Hoskins flew off together to the Greek island of Santorini, a well-known romantic destination. Their purpose? To discuss ‘the possibility of a future relationship’.
I wonder whether, before this happened, two sentient human beings have ever before left our shores to fly more than 2,000 miles to a sun-kissed Greek island to discuss the pros and cons of having an affair? Mr Sherborne and Ms Patry Hoskins would appear to have set a remarkable precedent.
Perhaps they took advice from a broad-minded ‘agony aunt’ unknown to the rest of us. Perhaps this sage suggested that the couple — no doubt occupying separate rooms, maybe even different hotels at opposite ends of the island — should thrash the matter out coolly and logically, as lawyers like to do.
Do you believe it? Lord Justice Leveson would appear to. But what if Mr Sherborne and Ms Patry Hoskins are being economical with the truth? What if, while occupying different roles in the inquiry, they were already intimate while it went on?
Only a few days after public hearings at the inquiry had ended, Mr Sherborne and the still-married Ms Patry Hoskins flew off together to the Greek island of Santorini, a well-known romantic destination
What if sightings of the two of them having coffee together during the proceedings, and common gossip among other lawyers, indicated that a relationship was already underway? Would that matter?
It would matter a lot. If they were in a relationship before the inquiry finished, they should have told Lord Justice Leveson, which they did not do. He would have wished to have satisfied himself that there was no collusion — that, for example, when she questioned witnesses who were Mr Sherborne’s clients, she did not hold back.
His Lordship would also have wanted to be certain that Ms Patry Hoskins, when collating and synthesising evidence for the report that followed the inquiry, was being as objective and impartial as she was required to be, and that she wasn’t influenced by a close relationship with Mr Sherborne.
More from Stephen Glover...
It's insane that we're fleeced by the energy giants AND help them avoid tax! 17/04/13
This bilious hatred and lack of respect for the dead is a disturbing new low in British life 10/04/13
Weaned on the Beeb's hatred, no wonder the young rejoice at her death 09/04/13
Forget the Mafia. Our Establishment covers up its crimes better than anyone 03/04/13
The Mean Streets Of Ambridge have become a joke. Should the BBC put The Archers out of its misery? 27/03/13
Trendy? No, using Twitter makes our leaders look more vacuous than they are already 20/03/13
The 'bedroom tax' is the new great lie of the Left and the BBC. How on earth can a small welfare cut be a tax? 13/03/13
Labour's to blame for The Man With No Shame. It's pure folly for the Tories to back him 06/03/13
VIEW FULL ARCHIVE
Of course we don’t know if an affair began before they jetted off to Santorini. Nor can we know, if it did, whether it influenced the inquiry in any way. The trouble is that a perception has been created which it will be very difficult for Lord Justice Leveson, or anyone else, to undo.
Legal precedents are sparse but it is reasonable to speculate as to what might happen if a judge in a criminal trial discovered a covert close relationship between lawyers on opposing sides. On the principle that justice must be seen to be done, it is highly likely that there would be a re-trial.
A public inquiry is not a trial but it needs to command public confidence nonetheless, particularly if, as in the case of Lord Justice Leveson’s, it makes far-reaching recommendations. It can hardly be denied that the credibility of his report has at the very least been called into question.
And yet his Lordship’s response is to dismiss criticisms out of hand without apparently giving himself the opportunity to examine thoroughly whether they might have any substance. Dare one say that it suits him to believe that the affair did not begin until after the public inquiry had ended?
Meanwhile the usual claque of Press-hating lawyers raise the predictable charge of ‘muckracking’ without addressing the central issue. Mark Lewis, the hacking victims’ lawyer who represented the family of Milly Dowler at the Leveson Inquiry, rejects claims of a conflict of interest, alleging ‘a further example of muckraking by trying to create scandal where there is none in order to discredit the Leveson Inquiry.’
More distressing to me was an article in The Independent which recycled similar points. Of course most newspapers (The Independent is an apparent exception) do not like many aspects of the Leveson Report. That does not invalidate their objections when evidence of possible impropriety comes to light.
Needless to say, a year-long inquiry costing some £5 million cannot be re-run in the same way that a trial might be. God save us from that. But if Lord Justice Leveson wishes to re‑establish the credibility of his report, he will have to be a little less high-handed.
Mr Sherborne and Ms Patry Hoskins must be asked to demonstrate that, when their affair began, the relationship did not taint the inquiry. They should be investigated by the Bar Standards Board, and why not by Lord Justice Leveson as well, and the evidence published.
If it can be shown their affair post-dated the inquiry — an almost impossible task I would submit, but let’s see — then the controversy might die away. Even so, the perception that the inquiry was to some degree compromised will not unreasonably linger.
David Sherborne and Carine Patry Hoskins doubtless hope that the matter will blow away, as must Lord Justice Leveson. He may also believe that his Olympian dismissiveness will silence the pesky Press. Who are mere journalists to question him?
Yet public confidence in his report may not be boundless. People agree with him that journalists should have high standards. But they also believe that lawyers holding them to account should have standards too.