A veteran lawyer representing suspended Chief Justice Derek Schofield said yesterday that Gibraltar’s top judge should keep his job but, if he must go, should be allowed to do so voluntarily and with his reputation intact.

Michael Beloff, QC, told the Privy Council that Mr Justice Schofield had been treated unfairly by a high-level tribunal which last year recommended his removal from office.

In investigating a complaint from Gibraltar’s top four law firms, the tribunal found that Mr Justice Schofield was no longer fit for the post.

The Privy Council, the highest British court for Gibraltar, now has to decide whether to back that finding and sack Mr Justice Schofield, or dismiss it and reinstate him.

“The tribunal reached conclusions on the evidence that were both wrong and unfair,” Mr Beloff said in his opening address to the Privy Council committee.

“Where there were two versions, the tribunal too readily favoured a version hostile to the Chief Justice.”

Mr Beloff urged the seven Privy Council judges to reject the tribunal’s recommendation, reminding them that the Chief Justice had served diligently in three jurisdictions for many years.

To suggest that he was now unfit for office was to brand him “a judicial Jeckyll and Hyde”.

But in a comment that appeared to take some at the hearing by surprise, Mr Beloff added: “If he is to leave that office, he should be able to do it voluntarily and not with an irremovable stain on his career.”

AN END TO THE MATTER

Yesterday was the second day of submissions at the Privy Council session, which is being held in a committee room deep inside the House of Lords in Westminster.

Hearing the case is a committee made up of seven of Britain’s most senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge.

They are clearly deeply engaged in the task before them. The submissions from lawyers are laced with the judges’ incisive questions and exchanges on principles of law and issues of evidence.

At times yesterday there was an inescapable sense that the parties involved want an end to this destructive legal saga once and for all.

Opinions on what the outcome should be, however, remain sharply divided.

James Eadie, QC, the lawyer representing the Government of Gibraltar, made that clear as he closed his intervention yesterday morning.

“It is time for the matter to be resolved in the only way possible, and that is for the [Privy Council] committee to recommend the removal of the Chief Justice,” he said.

That would allow “…the damaging dislocation of the past few years to be resolved,” he added.

STANDARDS

The committee also heard submissions yesterday from Tim Otty, QC, the barrister representing the Governor of Gibraltar.

He said lawyers for the Chief Justice had raised four main areas of concern about the way the tribunal handled its work last year.

“None of those challenges are well founded,” Mr Otty said.

Mr Otty focused heavily on technical legal issues in a submission that drew on jurisprudence from Commonwealth countries and Europe.

He said the tribunal had properly gone about its work and that its conclusions were justifiable on the basis of the facts collected.

He also tackled the Schofield legal team’s concerns about the “standard of proof” applied by the tribunal.

The tribunal, which was headed by Lord Cullen and included two other veteran judges, applied the civil standard. Lawyers for the Chief Justice said a stricter, criminal standard should have been used.

This is important because establishing the facts of what actually happened in this long-running controversy was the first step in deciding what should happen to the Chief Justice.

Mr Beloff underlined the point.

“If the tribunal was wrong on the issue of standard of proof, then in circumstances where there was a choice of evidence…their findings would be poisoned and little if any confidence could be placed in them,” he said.

Mr Beloff will continue his submissions when the Privy Council reconvenes this morning.

There is a possibility that if submissions are not concluded today, the committee will extend the session and meet again tomorrow.