Suspicious but hard to prove improper motive. SAR pending.
HHJ Dight CBE (the Lees v Kaye MHCM judge) was scheduled for the 19 Aug 2025 hearing. He was swapped for Recorder Cohen at the last minute with no explanation. Cohen then got the MHCM analysis wrong. SAR filed to investigate.
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
Judicial listing is a matter for the Presiding Judge and not subject to JR.
Judicial listing decisions are amenable to JR where they give rise to procedural unfairness or apparent bias. The specific swap of the one judge who decided the leading MHCM authority, replaced by a judge who then got the MHCM analysis wrong, creates at minimum an appearance of procedural unfairness that demands explanation. SAR filed to investigate.
Recorder Cohen KC is a highly qualified member of the Bar. The assignment was proper.
Cohen's qualifications are not disputed. The question is WHY a judge who had specific expertise in MHCM law (Dight decided Lees v Kaye) was removed from a case where MHCM law was the central issue, and replaced by a judge who demonstrably did not understand that law. The SAR will determine whether this was coincidence or something more concerning.
SAR filed to obtain documentary evidence of the swap. Awaiting response.
Fallback: The swap is suspicious context. Cohen's judgment fails independently.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.