Conduct of Judge Robin Tolson QC

That this House welcomes the overturning by the High Court of Justice Tolson’s ruling in the Central Family Court that a sexual assault did not constitute rape because the woman had taken no physical step to encourage the man to desist; notes with concern the High Court’s findings that Justice Tolson failed to apply the definitions of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour, dismissed or ignored reports from the police, failed to allow the Appellant to make her full submission and repeatedly interrupted her; further notes with concern the High Court’s findings on Justice Tolson’s judgment that the real risk of the appearance of a partisan approach in that judge’s conduct was self-evident and that the fact that the judge preferred the Respondent’s case was patent throughout his judgment; highlights the High Court’s further findings that Justice Tolson’s reasons for dismissing the evidence of the Appellant were wrong, specifically, that he made a finding regarding the Appellant’s psychological state of mind without any forensic expert evidence; further highlights that the High Court found that Justice Tolson’s approach towards the issue of consent was manifestly at odds with current jurisprudence, concomitant sexual behaviour, and what is currently acceptable socio-sexual conduct; notes with concern that Justice Tolson continues to preside over cases involving domestic abuse and rape in the Family Courts; and calls on the Government to take steps with the Judicial College to ensure that training is made mandatory for family court and criminal court judges on the legally correct and appropriate approach to take when hearing domestic abuse and sexual assault allegations.