Weakest ground. Awaiting SAR. Hard to prove causation.
HHJ Dight CBE (the judge in Lees v Kaye who understood MHCM law) was scheduled but replaced at the last minute by Recorder Cohen KC, who then got the MHCM analysis wrong. No explanation for the swap. SAR filed.
Procedural impropriety; SAR pending
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Judicial assignment is an administrative matter not subject to challenge.
The swap is not challenged in isolation. HHJ Dight CBE decided Lees v Kaye (THE leading MHCM authority). He was assigned, then swapped at the last minute for Cohen, who then got the MHCM wrong. SAR filed to investigate. The timing and consequence are relevant to the bias analysis.
There is no obligation to assign a specific judge. Any qualified judge can hear any case.
Agreed in principle. But the SAR will reveal whether the swap was requested by anyone with a stake in the outcome. If the defendant's solicitors or counsel requested the swap, that changes the analysis entirely. Even without that, the consequence (losing the one judge who understood MHCM law) combined with the timing demands investigation.
SAR filed to obtain documentary evidence of the swap. Awaiting response.
Fallback: The swap is suspicious but not essential. Cohen's judgment fails on its own merits regardless of why he was assigned.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.
| Date | Judge | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 August 2025 | Recorder Cohen KC | Summary Judgment Order | VOID |
| 19 August 2025 | Recorder Cohen KC | N460 Permission Refusal / TWM on PTA | VOID |