The meeting that TLS has been so courageously and skillfully arranged with Lord Voldemort for the benefit of us all, is to be held under the Chatham House rule. This worries me.
On the Northern Circuit, at our first videolink meeting on Legal Aid last year (which seems like an eternity ago!), we expressly forbade the Leader of the Circuit from taking part in any further meetings (at that stage) under CHR.
The reason for this was that it was felt that Chatham House rule is not beneficial to the transparency of process that we are due in this case.
Chatham House itself describes the rule thusly:
"It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted."
So, it allows the representative of TLS (despite possibly being one of those in whom there was a vote of no-confidence and who still will not resign) to voice his/her own views and not to properly represent the views of TLS's members. This is precisely what has been complained of.
What is more, the others present will not be able to point the finger at such an offending person without breaching the rule.
Accordingly, whilst Grayling is running from another clash with the Bar, he thinks the leadership of TLS are still prepared to box themselves into a corner in this manner.
Did those organisations attending actually agree to CHR? Or did it simply pass into the meeting's details without query? Or, more worryingly, was it a condition upon the meeting happening at all?
Any thoughts? Should be Grayling be allowed these Special Measures? Will it improve the quality of anybody's "evidence"? Or is it just a way of putting up a screen to spare blushes?
UPDATE:
The MoJ has just sent an angry reply to The Criminal Bar Association for calling it a cancellation. But, this just raises another question: Why is the MoJ arranging a Chatham House rule meeting with TLS and solicitors' groups but not inviting the CBA to the party on the same date?
