Lord Justice Bean has been referred to the judiciary’s disciplinary body over claims of potential conflicts of interest after he delivered Friday’s landmark ruling allowing asylum seekers to remain at an Essex hotel.
Leading barrister Steven Barrett submitted a formal complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) citing “public trust and confidence in the Judiciary” after highlighting Lord Justice Bean’s extensive links to left-wing organisations and the Labour Party.
The senior Court of Appeal judge, sitting with two other justices, ruled that the initial High Court injunction preventing the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest from housing migrants was “seriously flawed in principle”, representing a significant victory for the Home Office.
“He should not have heard the Bell Hotel appeal,” Mr Barrett declared in a social media post, having made his complaint on Thursday before the ruling was handed down.
Lord Justice Bean’s political connections span decades of involvement with socialist organisations. He served as chairman of the Fabian Society from 1989 to 1990, a think tank that describes itself as “a democratically governed socialist society” and Labour affiliate that works closely with the party.
His successors at the Fabian Society included a roster of Labour grandees: former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, Treasury minister Ed Balls, Children’s minister Margaret Hodge, and current London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
The 71-year-old judge was also one of the founding members of Matrix Chambers in 2000, alongside Cherie Blair, wife of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. Lord Hermer, the current Attorney General under Sir Keir Starmer’s government, joined the chambers later.
Lord Justice Bean reportedly served as treasurer for the Society of Labour Lawyers, which describes itself as “a think-tank and affiliated socialist society which provides legal and policy advice to the Labour Party” and declares its objectives include contributing “legal expertise to the Labour Party.
Mr Barrett’s complaint invoked the legal principle of “apparent bias”, established in the landmark Pinochet case, which states that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be being done.
“The issue is apparent bias – not actual bias,” Mr Barrett explained after Friday’s ruling. “I highlighted this issue before the judgment – because it was an issue already. It is far more of an issue now.”
The barrister cited concerns that Lord Justice Bean’s friendship with the current Attorney General and his longstanding associations with organisations that advocate for migrants could give rise to “a suspicion that he is not impartial.”
The Court of Appeal’s decision allows 138 asylum seekers to remain at the Bell Hotel, overturning an interim injunction granted by Mr Justice Eyre on 19 August that would have required their removal by 12 September.
Lord Justice Bean, reading the judgment, said the High Court judge had made “a number of errors in principle” and warned that such injunctions could have a “cumulative impact” by shifting the burden of housing asylum seekers to other areas and potentially incentivising violent protests.
The ruling sparked immediate political reaction, with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claiming Sir Keir Starmer “puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people” and urging Conservative councillors to “KEEP GOING!” despite the setback.
Local councillor Ken Williamson expressed deep disappointment, stating: “Where we had clarity and resolution, we now have doubt and confusion. The battle is not over and we will continue the fight.”
The case has exposed the political backgrounds of judges on both sides of the dispute. Mr Justice Eyre, who granted the original injunction favouring Epping Forest District Council, was a Conservative parliamentary candidate four times, including in the 2004 Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election.
The JCIO, established in 2006 following the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, supports the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. It investigates complaints about personal misconduct by judicial office holders.
Under judicial conduct rules, complaints about apparent bias can be investigated if they raise concerns about public confidence in judicial impartiality. The rules state that judges must avoid any appearance of bias that might undermine confidence in the judiciary.
Mr Barrett argued that Matrix Chambers is “firmly associated with advocacy in favour of allowing migrants to stay” and that Lord Justice Bean’s connections meant he should have recused himself from hearing the case.
Speaking on GB News after the ruling, Mr Barrett criticised the judgment as “deeply flawed on its own terms” and predicted that “the good people of Epping will feel very aggrieved.
The Bell Hotel has been at the centre of protests since July after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl. Hadush Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, denies the offences and has been on trial.
Friday’s ruling means the Home Office can continue using the hotel to accommodate asylum seekers while a full hearing of the legal claim is scheduled for October. The judges also granted the Home Office party status in future proceedings, saying it was “plainly directly affected by the issues.
Lord Justice Bean defended the decision, stating: “The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”
The complaint against Lord Justice Bean must now be considered by the JCIO, which has the power to investigate whether his political associations created an appearance of bias that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
