In his latest letter published at Wired868, Dr Crowne’s motive is highly suspect as he appears to be highly confused and seemingly intent on confusing everybody else. Dr Crowne seems to think he can force his opinion on everybody using soundbites and rather vacant, dressed-up utterances based on headline intelligence - by relying on his qualifications and international fame in 'Sports Law'. His agenda is conspicuously to use websites, including Wired868, and newspaper articles for the covert purpose of advertising himself. Those among the undiscerning are his potential prey.
Despite disagreeing with several eminent Queen’s Counsels (QCs) who are qualified in Constitutional law, Dr Crowne has still failed to give any discernible and cogent reason as to his opinion.
On 24th July 2019 on Wired868, he stated, “The Prime Minister’s decision to refer, or not refer, allegations to the President—who in turn is constitutionally charged with appointing a tribunal to formally investigate such allegations—is itself an intrusion into judicial independence and the usual separation of powers. To then have a Court review the Prime Minister’s exercise of his discretion would then further intrude into the separation of powers. It would be a conceptual mess.” This was and is pure nonsense for reasons that I addressed earlier.
Then, on 3rd August he does an about-face to say, “I fear that even in the absence of any findings of misconduct by a Presidential tribunal constituted pursuant to section 137 of the Constitution, there is an undeniable perception that the integrity of the judiciary has been impugned.”
The contrast in opinions howsoever arrived at, is startling. In essence, Dr Crowne’s first article makes the case that the PM’s decision not to refer the matter to the President was correct because the PM sought legal advice. Notably in that article Crowne did not examine the nature of the legal advice - when everybody had access to it. Now in his latest letter, he makes the case that whether or not a Tribunal is convened under s137, there is a perception that the integrity of the judiciary has been impugned.
One must wonder - is Dr Crowne lacking self-awareness? Is he saying now, at today’s date, that whilst there is a valid perception of the judiciary’s integrity being impugned, a Tribunal constituted via a 137 referral on the matter of potential misconduct, is irrelevant? This is all very confusing.
Dr Crowne may attempt to wriggle out of his obvious self-contradiction by ‘distinguishing’ the matter of Justice Gobin from the issue of the PM making a referral on other matters. But that just wouldn’t cut. The issue with Justice Gobin simply adds to the pile of evidence that lies with the PM and in the public domain, that the case for a s137 referral is more necessary than ever, if only to ascertain the facts. I have given other reasons, adapted from Hill
On the one hand, he is saying that the Chief Justice need not resign because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. But, on the other hand he says the Chief Justice should resign because there is a perception of wrongdoing. One would think that a lawyer would be eager to test the evidence of whether that perception can be supported by facts.
Dr Crowne may also attempt to distinguish on matters of public and administrative law. He demonstrates no skill or depth of knowledge in his utterances in that area of law. His argument of 24th July was/is fatally flawed because:
1. The PM’s discretion to refer the matter of the CJ’s perceived conduct to the president is factually not an intrusion “...into judicial independence and the usual separation of powers”. If that was the case, then the Constitution itself is fundamentally wrong to give such a discretion to the PM. But Dr Crowne in his choice of words, taken as a whole, suggests that the President too would be complicit in assaulting the principle of the ‘separation of powers’ by convening a S137 Tribunal. Read what Dr Crowne says very carefully. Like I said previously, the framers of the Constitution were no dummies.
2. Judicial Review - as Crowne will discover - is a legitimate legal investigation of powers and discretions, derived in law, are used (or not used). Every first-year law student will be aware of this. It is about the Rule of Law. That Dr Crowne says “…to then have a Court review the Prime Minister’s exercise of his discretion would then further intrude into the separation of powers.” - is an absurd conclusion or statement. How? The Courts have a mandate to judicially review any case, where there is merit, by investigating the applications of law carried out by those exercising public functions - which the PM certainly is. This has emerged clearly from the basic principles of the Rule of Law, which harks back to the Magna Carta 800 years ago - and has subsequently stood the test of time.
Dr Crowne would be well advised to stick within his original area of expertise which is ‘Sports Law’ https://newcitychambers.com/dr-emir-crowne-named-one-of-the-worlds-top-sport-lawyers/ - or update his knowledge base of Public and Administrative law fully, before opening his mouth.
In effect - whether intended or not - Crowne would have us tear up the Rule of Law. His words are destructive and self-destructive. He comes across as being out of his depth. This is not only my opinion, this has been stated in the public domain by others who are also equally well qualified legally, as previously noted.
One would have to take what he says with a grain of salt, as the saying goes. If the Chief Justice must resign gracefully (one of the lessons of the Kobayashi Maru test is to accept losing gracefully, but definitely not about resigning or giving up!) it should have been done long ago. Grace is impossible at this point, and the judiciary is already far more impugned by the Chief Justice than merely his exchange with Justice Gobin. The latter is merely a symptom of a far deeper problem caused by the Chief Justice holding onto office at all cost.
