2024-02-14
It is a basic tenet of our legal system that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
This "being seen to be done" cannot merely be interpreted as "being seen by the legal profession to be done" since the whole point of the principle is that the public should not lose confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
Whose responsibility is it to ensure that justice is seen to be done, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that when it isn't, something appropriate is done about it?
I am no lawyer, so will not comment on the correct legal interpretation of the case in question, but to my untutored mind it does appear that in this case, justice might not have been seen to be done. The very fact that a noted independent journalist thinks so is to my mind prima facie evidence for this.
