There are three points which I think are worth emphasising on the issue of delay.
The first is that while we don’t know the identity of the panel it is highly likely that it contains at least two senior legal figures, quite possibly retired high court (or higher) judges. It is quite possible that they were already booked in to do other cases, commercial arbitrations for instance, so writing the decision up is something they have to fit around other their commitments. Which are unlikely to be simple cases themselves
the second thing is that the probability is that for the last 40 years these guys have been accustomed to taking August off. All of it. So chances are the panel isn’t hard at work crafting the 500 page decision we are all expecting. They’re actually sitting on the verandas of their houses in Tuscany and Provence watching the sun go down over a nice glass of Chianti/Bordeaux/whatevs
The third thing is that in a typical PL piece of shut-door-after-horse-has-bolted legislation they have stipulated that in the future appointees to disciplinary panels will be required to certify that they are able to give the appointment the necessary time to complete their work in a timely fashion. Which means the PL isn’t quite sure howling this one should have taken, but they think it’s too long and they are blaming the panel for having other things to do and taking August off.
I doubt delay in itself is either a positive or a negative. It is what it is. It just means we aren’t likely to get a decision in the next couple of weeks at least
www.bbc.co.uk
