Privately, lawyers joked yesterday that “every single judge in the country would probably have to refuse himself from sitting on David Blunkett’s case, because not one of them is impartial where he is concerned”.

But while one or two judges may allow themselves a few seconds of schadenfreude at the irony of the Home Secretary’s plight, they would regard it as a badge of honour to give him the fairest of hearings. Despite the backdrop of continuing tensions between Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Home Secretary, the judges’ adversary would in reality be treated as anyone else. Stephen Irwin, QC, the chairman of the Bar, said: “I am perfectly sure that Mr Blunkett would get a courteous and fair hearing. Some of the judiciary will not agree with some of the things he has said, but they will bend over backwards to ensure the parties were treated fairly.”

Michael Caplan, QC, the Solicitor Advocate, who acted for General Pinochet in his challenge to the perceived bias in a ruling by the law lords, agreed. “David Blunkett would get a fair hearing just like anyone else, whatever the views of the judges of his policies.”

John Cooper, a criminal barrister and member of the Bar Council, said: “The reality is that the impartiality of the judiciary is without question. One could perhaps understand if Mr Blunkett had concerns, given his attacks on the judiciary and legal profession. He might feel, for example, that he should avoid Lord Woolf.

“But such feelings would be completely misplaced. Judges would not allow any personal views they had about the Home Secretary and his policies to stand in the way of a fair decision.” Simon McKay, a criminal solicitor in Leeds, said: “The Home Secretary is no stranger to coming before the courts, although of course that is in his political capacity. As with those cases, the question would be what he will think if he does not like the decision. Will he perceive he has been treated fairly?” The reality was that the Home Secretary would get a fair hearing.

As for whether he thought he had had one, if the decision were one he disagreed with, that was another matter. “But then we know what he thinks of the judges already.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Forces chief faces new battle - the economy
• Seven days that shook the world
• Icelanders wake up and smell ... the fish