(not satire – it’s the UK today)
I’ve already written about the unsuitability of putting Lady Butler-Sloss in charge of the official inquiry into child abuse by VIPs – not least because she would have to investigate her own brother.
But here’s an even more compelling reason she must stand down.
Unbelievably, Butler-Sloss has stated that she thinks heads of states and leaders have the right to immunity from court action.
She has also said that she thinks heads of states and leaders should have the right to remain anonymous during court cases.
In 2004, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – then president of the high court’s family division – assigned a false name to a case launched in the English courts to protect King Fahd of Saudi Arabia:
The reason she gave for her bizarre actions was because she said the king was entitled to “sovereign immunity“.
She also ruled that the king – or indeed any head of state – was entitled to anonymity:
“Once the press are aware of this they will dig a great deal deeper and there will be a great deal of information which they will be able to put into the public domain.”
How on earth is Butler-Sloss supposed to investigate the possible cover-up of child abuse by political leaders if she thinks they are immune from the courts and have the right for their actions to be covered up?
Incidentally, three appeal court judges ruled her argument was “particularly unpersuasive” and that she’d “misdirected herself”.
That’s actually pretty strong language from an appeal court to a judge.
Butler-Sloss was ‘retired’ to the House of Lords just months after the appeal court’s decision against her.
Related articles by Tom Pride:
Please feel free to comment.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you can share this article with other people. Thanks: