There was an odd question raised in the House of Commons yesterday – not odd in itself but odd in the fact that the usual Hansard Kremlinwatchers may not be aware of the background.

Firstly, the issue was about misconduct by the judiciary, and in response to a question from Labour’s Gordon Prentice (Pendle), the Justice Secretary Jack Straw answered that “Between 2004 and 2009, 95 magistrates, 14 tribunal members and two judges were removed for misconduct”, although he was unable to say if such misconduct took place within a courtroom or outside.

“In addition, last year 12 magistrates, five tribunal members and two judges resigned during the course of conduct proceedings.” Straw also told MPs that last year two judges had resigned while facing proceedings, adding “It is not known how many of these cases involved breaches of conduct within a courtroom.”

According to information released by the Office for Judicial Complaints, two judges received a reprimand in 2006-7 for inappropriate behaviour and one was was reprimanded in 2005 for inappropriate behaviour. Two judges were reprimanded in 2004, one for inappropriate behaviour, the other for inappropriate comments.

Now, why such a question was posed:
The long awaited decision on the fate of Gibraltar’s suspended Chief Justice, Derek Schofield (for it is he), is out tomorrow. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will convene at 10am in the Supreme Court in London to formally deliver its judgement. By that point, the parties in the case – including the Governor, four top law firms, the Gibraltar Government and the judge himself – will have had sight of the findings. But even though the hearing will be a short, 10-minute formality, its impact in Gibraltar will be huge.

The Privy Council, the highest British court for Gibraltar, will in effect decide whether or not Mr Justice Schofield can keep his job here.

If the judges back calls for the judge to be removed, then Mr Justice Schofield faces the sack. But if they reject those calls, the judge will expect to be reinstated.

Tomorrow’s decision will be the culmination of a tortuous process that has mired Gibraltar’s legal community in controversy for over two years. Last year, following a formal complaint about Mr Justice Schofield from Gibraltar’s top law firms, a disciplinary tribunal of three senior UK judges was established to explore in close and intense detail the allegations against the judge. The tribunal heard from witnesses at all levels of Gibraltar’s political and legal classes, including from Chief Minister Peter Caruana and Mr Justice Schofield himself.

Among the numerous complaints levelled against the judge were allegations that he had stepped beyond the boundaries of his post and attempted to influence political debate, in particular with regard to the new Constitution and the subsequent Judicial Services Act.

In his own submissions, the judge said he had acted out of concern for the independence of the judiciary and for the wider benefit of Gibraltar. He had seen it as his duty to air his concerns and rejected any suggestion that his actions were driven by personal or political motives.

In a damning report the tribunal recommended that the judge be removed from office on the grounds that he was unfit for the job. The case was then referred to the Privy Council by former governor Lt Gen Sir Robert Fulton. At the Privy Council, a panel of seven of the UK’s most senior judges heard submissions on the case last June.

The judges have taken nearly five months to reach a conclusion and it is their findings that will be revealed tomorrow.

TheEye has a horse running in this race, so to speak, and although most of the legal side-shows are over it is this main and final one which will keep many a political and legal head awake tonight. Considering the litigious nature of the participants in this dispute TheEye will refrain from expressing an opinion until it becoms clear if tomorrow’s large G&T’s will be of the celebratory or sorrow-drowning variety.

UPDATE: Chief Justice Schofield has been stripped of his office by a 4-3 split of the Privy Council.