How Sweet It Is! Judge Bathurst-Norman Reprimanded

Remember George Bathurst-Norman, the retired judge who this summer at Hove Crown Court, after an 87-page summing up containing a tirade about Israel's counter-terrorism operations in Gaza, presided over the acquittal of anti-Israel protesters who had smashed up a Brighton armaments factory suspected of supplying Israel and who had claimed as their defence the principle that they were breaking the law in order to prevent a greater breach of law (i.e. by Israel)? Well, the old gentleman has been formally reprimanded by the two most senior law officers in the realm, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.

In a statement released a few hours ago, a spokesperson for the Office for Judicial Complaints said: “At short notice, the judge assigned to try a politically sensitive trial at Hove Crown Court on 28 and 29 June 2010 was unable to sit. To avoid an adjournment, His Honour Bathurst-Norman agreed to replace to him.

A number of complaints were made about some of the observations he made during the trial and summing up. An investigation found that a number of these observations did not arise directly from the evidence at trial and could be seen as an expression of the judge’s personal views on a political question. This was an error.

The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice considered the conclusions of the investigation and H[is] H[onour] Bathurst-Norman was formally reprimanded.”

In many respects, this outcome is a tribute to the tireless persistence of Jonathan Hoffman, co-Vice-Chair of the Zionist Federation, who took the trouble to acquire a full transcript of Bathurst-Norman's summing up, and a vindication of Mr Hoffman's sometimes unappreciated zeal.  The full transcript, which proved that Bathurst-Norman's remarks had been even more scandalous than had been immediately imagined, was publicised by the doughty Mr Hoffman http://cifwatch.com/2010/07/14/the-judge-who-thought-he-was-defence-coun...
with the result that the Office of Judicial Complaints received numerous protests over the judge's conduct.
 
Here's how today's development is reported in the London-based Standpoint magazine (a highly recommended fairly new right-of-centre political journal) by that doyen of law correspondents, Joshua Rozenberg:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3462

Jonathan Hoffman responded to today's news thus: "As a result of this politically biased Judge, thousands of taxpayer pounds have been wasted and the criminals who vandalised the EDO factory walked away scot free. Let the disgracing of this Judge be a lesson to any other Judges who similarly encourage the delegitimisation of Israel. The Judge or magistrate who tries the case of the vandals who committed aggravated trespass at the Ahava shop in London on Saturday must punish them with the full force of the law."


"Hear, hear!" to that!

Judah's Lion and the Judge: the scandalous courtroom remarks of George Bathurst Norman

In the old days, when Anglo-Jews of a certain status relished the appellation "gentlemen of  the Mosaic persuasion", and often preferred the term "Hebrew" or "Israelite" to "Jew" with all its unpleasant stereotypical connotations, communal concerns tended to be raised sotto voce. The approach achieved results, but it was despised by more forthright  newcomers.

There are still critics who characterise Anglo-Jewry's elected leaders as "trembling Israelites".  But that charge could never be brought against the esteemed Vice-President of the Zionist Federation, the extraordinarily active and fearless Jonathan Hoffman (pictured, at a recent pro-Israel demonstration in London).  His willingness to play Daniel in the lion's den is legendary; indeed, his courage is itself leonine.

Now, Mr Hoffman has obtained the 87-page transcript of the case of Regina versus Robert Nicholls and Others, heard at Lewes Crown Court on 28-29 June, which after a scandalously biased-against-Israel summing up by Judge George Bathurst Norman resulted in the acquittal of all seven defendants, who successfully argued that in illegally breaking into and smashing up an armaments  factory they believed to be supplying Israel, they were preventing a greater crime.

Mr Hoffman's masterly blog here http://cifwatch.com/2010/07/14/the-judge-who-thought-he-was-defence-counsel/shows with analytical precision just how offensive, mischievous and improper Judge Bathurst Norman's summing up was - far more scandalous than at first imagined, although that was scandalous enough.

The blog's a must-read, and a must-do is the action that Mr Hoffman suggests.

From an English Courtroom - a Charter for Anti-Israel Criminality

Judge George Bathurst Norman raised eyebrows in the Anglo-Jewish community in 2001, when he blamed the collapse of a fraud trial he was hearing on the plaintiffs, the United Synagogue organisation, which he claimed had been "so casual as to offend the very name of justice".  The United Synagogue's president expressed "incredulity, a burning sense of injustice" at the judge's remarks, adding "It is extraordinary that the victim in this case can be made to appear the villain".  Bathurst Norman duly apologised.

Nearly a decade on, and the same judge was trundled out of retirement (we are surely entitled to ask "Why?") to preside at the trial of a number of people charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage - £180,000 worth of it - to a Brighton factory believed to be exporting arms components to Israel.  The damage occurred in response to Operation Cast Lead.  Last week, Bathurst Norman effectively directed the jury to deliver "Not Guilty" verdicts, telling them in his summing up: "You may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered at that time".  He added, of the ringleader: "The jury may feel his efforts investigating the company merit the George Cross" (Britain's highest civilian award for gallantry!).

The defendants' acquittal, then, rested on his subjective agreement (presumably deriving from his assimilation of Hamas propaganda via such sources as the BBC) with their defence argument, namely that their actions against the factory were justified in order to prevent a greater evil - war crimes by Israel.  Said the jubilant defence lawyer of the verdict: "It sends a clear indication that sometimes direct action is the only option when all other avenues have failed".

Similarly, Brighton MP Caroline Lucas, head of the Israel-demonising Green Party and herself a pro-Palestinian activist, expressed her delight "that the jury has recognised that the actions ... were a legitimate response to the atrocities being committed in Gaza" and that the defendants had clearly "exhausted all democratic avenues and, crucially, that their actions were driven by the responsibility to prevent further sufferings in Gaza".  Outside the courtroom one of the defendants reiterated that "it was necessary for ordinary people to take action like we did" - and vowed that the factory would continue to be targetted until it closed down.

So there we have it.  An English judge has given  a virtual carte-blanche to violently-inclined anti-Israel fanatics.  Apparently, there can be no appeal against an acquittal.  But there should certainly be a protest against Bathurst Norman's biased and blockheaded summation.  You can complain to the Office of Judicial Complaints on the form which can be accessed here:

http://tinyurl.com/2appu3d