Goldspring: No wasted costs order
A high-profile law firm has reported itself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after the Chief Magistrate strongly criticised its role in the failed private prosecution of a dual UK and Israeli national for reporting for duty in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).
Senior District Judge Goldspring said the failure to disclose the links between Bindmans, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) and their expert witness in the trial was “a serious breach of the duty owed to this court”.
DJ Goldspring ruled in April this year that the ICJP’s application for a summons against ‘A’ for an alleged offence under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 in reporting for reserve duty with the IDF on 8 October 2023 was an abuse of process, “driven by an improper motive and facilitated by serious breaches of the duty of candour”.
The judge said Bindmans and the ICJP were “deeply connected at the highest levels”, which “should have been disclosed to the court”.
Tayab Ali, deputy managing partner of Bindmans, was a director of the ICJP. The late Sir Geoffrey Bindman, founder of the law firm, had been on the organisation’s advisory board.
The ICJP’s expert witness, Dr Mandy Turner, was a member of the ICJP’s WhatsApp group, which again should have been disclosed to the court.
Dr Turner’s involvement in the group, “combined with her public statements and social media activity revealed her to be a campaigner and activist committed to the political agenda pursued by the prosecution, rather than an independent expert”.
Under the SRA’s code of conduct, solicitors must tell the regulator “if something happens that could be a breach of your regulatory arrangements”.
Journalist Joshua Rozenberg has reported that counsel for Bindmans told DJ Goldspring at a costs hearing last week that the firm had provided the contents of his earlier judgment to the SRA “and obviously will cooperate with any resulting regulatory investigation.”
The law firm told Legal Futures that it had complied with its regulatory duties.
At the costs hearing, DJ Goldspring said the court had refused the ICJP’s application for an issue of a summons against ‘A’, having identified “significant deficiencies in the legal analysis, evidential basis, and in particular the discharge of the duty of candour”.
‘A’ responded by applying for a wasted costs order against Bindmans and its barristers and a costs order against the ICJP.
DJ Goldspring said in a preliminary ruling on costs: “Counsel acted on instructions. They are not under a duty to independently verify those instructions and are entitled to proceed on the basis of the material with which they are instructed, absent reason to doubt it.
“As to Bindmans LLP, I record that I am not entirely convinced that the firm acted to the standard to be expected in relation to disclosure, in particular concerning the relationships between Bindmans, the ICJP and Dr Turner. These matters properly gave rise to concern.
“However, even taking those matters at their highest, I am not satisfied that the stringent threshold for a wasted costs order – namely conduct which is properly to be characterised as improper, unreasonable or negligent – is met. The high bar required for the jurisdiction to be engaged is not crossed.”
However, he awarded costs against the IJCP under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
“The position of the ICJP is different. I am satisfied that the ICJP did act improperly within the meaning of section 19 of the 1985 Act, in particular in failing to approach the duty of candour appropriately.”
DJ Goldspring described the ICJP’s failings as “egregious and so much appears to be conceded by the ICJP”.
The judge added that he would deal with assessment of costs in a full, reasoned judgment.