MSM claiming ‘major’ defeat for Corbyn but it’s only a minor part of round one of legal proceedings – and Labour has put itself on a hook
The so-called ‘mainstream’ media have been doing their usual dire job today, in this instance reporting on Jeremy Corbyn’s legal case against the Labour party in terms clearly favouring Keir Starmer, but bearing little resemblance to reality. Novara’s Aaron Bastani identified one such instance in a response on social media:
In reality, the events at today’s court hearing were unsurprising given that the party has denied the existence of the documents Corbyn’s team were trying to persuade the court to order disclosed. Starmer’s office has denied that any notes were made – contrary to decades of usual ‘LOTO’ practice – of his team’s discussions with Corbyn’s advisers and are trying to claim no deal was made for Corbyn’s reinstatement to the Labour whip.
But the rest of what the judge said has been conveniently ignored by the Establishment media.
The court gave its decision today at 3.30 and did not allow the application for pre-action disclosure of LP documents made by Corbyn’s lawyers.
However, the judge also linked the decision to her finding that Corbyn already had enough to press on with in the substantive case at this point – and said his team can submit amendments later in the case regarding the agreement that was negotiated with Starmer’s office. And there was considerable bad news for Starmer’s case in the rest of the judgment, which:
- acknowledges in a judicial finding – in paragraph 9 – that the ‘Governance and Legal Unit’ (GLU) report presented to the National Executive Committee ‘Disputes Panel’ did not find that JC had engaged in prejudicial conduct
- finds in paragraph 10 that the Disputes Panel made no finding that Corbyn’s conduct was grossly detrimental
- finds that there is a clear arguable case of procedural unfairness that has been identified
The finding is also unhelpful to the party’s case, in that in the substantive proceedings to follow they will have to stand by their representations to the court that there exist no documents relevant to the agreement to reinstate. Any discovery of such documents will be hugely incriminating – and equally the party will not be able to point to any documents it thinks will help its case, because supposedly none exist.
The failure of the ‘MSM’ to mention any of these obviously-significant aspects of today’s judgment is as damning as it is unsurprising.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.