To be clear, the status of this is that it was the formal report of a public inquiry commissioned by the UK government and chaired by this judge. It was not a court and doesn’t have the status of law. The report simply records the inquiry’s findings, and it’s now up to the UK government to decide what action (if any) to take.
Then maybe instead of saying Judge, Justice, etc. so and so the article would have been better served saying “Chairman....”.
I do not contradict the findings; I contradict the usage of his status as judge and then not being able to appended some ‘rule of law’ connection with it.
Then maybe instead of saying Judge, Justice, etc. so and so the article would have been better served saying “Chairman....”.
I do not contradict the findings; I contradict the usage of his status as judge and then not being able to appended some ‘rule of law’ connection with it.