I have been contemplating tackling the issue of religious discrimination and the role of the advocate in such cases, with an eye on the barrister often at the centre of such cases Paul Diamond. I had been mulling over how best to approach the topic, having heard Mr Diamond on Radio 4 some time ago, and having heard his response to the strident judicial criticism of him. Fortunately Joshua Rozenberg has beaten me to it, so now I don’t have to agonise about how best to put it. I couldn’t have said it better myself – in fact I am certain that Rozenberg has put it rather more elegantly than I would have. Probably just as well. Like Rozenberg, I have read Mr Diamond’s website with interest, particularly the section here which reads:
|
Paul Diamond has a controversial and ‘cutting edge’ practice. There is considerable animus to his practice and unfortunately (in modern Britain), Paul Diamond is alert to unethical attempts to damage his practice and reputation. Individuals have sought to compromise his independence and integrity. Paul Diamond is resolute in his defence of the ‘rule of law’ . Regrettably, Paul Diamond took the unprecedented step of suing the Bar Council. Previously, on 5th May 2005 Mr. Justice Hart had severely criticised the Bar Council of England and Wales for their acts against Paul Diamond. |
I’m intrigued, but not quite sure I understand what that is all about. It appears from the manner of its presentation to be a quote from The Lawyer, but the link provided is in fact not to The Lawyer, and the BSB Register does not shed any light on what this relates to, so I am left a little perplexed (and suitably cautious).
The details of the case to which Paul Diamond alludes are here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/3290.html
OHHHHHH! Clunk – it has all fallen into place. Considerable animus indeed.
The only comment on which I make is to say that the case does not, in my opinion, show Mr. Diamond in quite the light he suggests.