UK SC’s judge urged to stand down hearing over wife’s anti-Brexit tweets

LONDON: The Supreme Court's most senior judge has been urged to stand down from a crucial legal hearing on Britain's withdrawal from the European Union after it emerged his wife had posted a series of anti-Brexit tweets.

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the president of the Supreme Court, was accused by pro-Brexit Conservative MPs of being compromised by his wife's views.

The Supreme Court's code of conduct warns justices to be aware "that political activity" of a close relative could raise concerns over impartiality although a senior source said the judge was "absolutely confident" there had been no breach in this case.

The source added: "This case is about a point of law and Lady Neuberger's views are nothing to do with it."

The government has become embroiled in a row with the judiciary after High Court judges ruled that there should be a parliamentary voter before Article 50 is triggered.

Tory MPs, including Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, criticised the judges. Mr Javid said the ruling was an attempt to "block the will of the people". 

Liz Truss, the Justice Secretary, then spoke out attacking the judges' critics after a statement by the Bar Council, which represents 15,000 barristers, urged her to condemn "serious and unjustified attacks on the judiciary".

In a series of tweets, Lady Neuberger, under her maiden name Angela Holdsworth, denounced the referendum as "mad and bad" and dismissed Ukip and Brexit as "just a protest vote".

Lord Neuberger will preside at the beginning of next month over a four-day judicial hearing that will decide whether the Government can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, giving notice to leave the European Union without a vote in parliament.

In June, Lady Neuberger, 69, appeared to pre-empt the issue her husband, along with 10 colleagues, must now decide, by retweeting a Remain campaign group's message: "It seems unlikely that a PM could trigger Article 50 without Parliament's approval."

Her public pro-Remain stance prompted criticism from Conservative MPs, who in so doing will reignite a row over the right of politicians to attack the judiciary.

Andrew Bridgen, Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, said: "I think he [Lord Neuberger] should stand down. This is a crucially important judicial decision for our country and it must be seen to be taken impartially."

Andrew Rosindell, the Tory MP for Romford, said: "This is embarrassing for the Supreme Court given the seriousness of the upcoming Court case.

"His wife's views are injudicious and clearly his position is compromised."

The Supreme Court's judicial code of conduct states: "They [the justices] will bear in mind that political activity by a close member of a Justice's family might raise concern in a particular case about the judge's own impartiality and detachment from the political process."

The Supreme Court source said Lady Neuberger's comments could not be construed as 'political activity' under the meaning of the code while the legal action did not challenge the referendum result. "This case is about a point of law and Lady Neuberger's views are nothing to do with it," said the source.

A Supreme Court spokesman said: "Justices' spouses are fully entitled to express personal opinions, including on issues of the day. Lady Neuberger's passing comments on Twitter have absolutely no bearing on Lord Neuberger's ability to determine the legal questions in this case impartially, according to the law of the land."