Lawyers for Corbyn accuse Starmer of 'disingenuous' attack
Lawyers for Jeremy Corbyn have accused the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, of making âinflammatory and disingenuousâ attacks on his predecessor following a row over the partyâs handling of antisemitism.
At a high court hearing on Monday, Corbynâs lawyers said documents would help prove there was a deal with Starmerâs office to readmit him to the party, and Corbynâs suspension âwent behind an agreement to reinstateâ him to Labour âat all levelsâ.
Corbynâs barrister, Christopher Jacobs, told the hearing: âThe disclosure will enable my client to plead that there was procedural unfairness, and breach of a duty to act in good faith.â
He said Corbynâs treatment by the party had been âgrossly unfairâ.
Related: Corbyn row illustrates flaws of Labour's current disciplinary process
Corbyn was initially suspended from Labour in October, when he said the scale of antisemitism in the party had been âdramatically overstatedâ, in the wake of a damning report by the equalities watchdog.
In November Corbyn was readmitted by the national executive committee, but Starmer ordered the Labour whip be withheld until he apologised. Corbyn has not done so, but did issue a clarifying statement saying it was not his intention to âtolerate antisemitism or belittle concerns about itâ.
In court, Jacobs accused Starmer of âresiling from a settled agreement, and going behind a final decision of the NECâ. He cited a speech Starmer gave to the Jewish Labour Movement conference on 29 November, in which he said Corbynâs reaction to the watchdogâs report was âas bad as you could getâ.
Jacobs said: âWe say that is an inflammatory statement and is disingenuous because of the NEC outcome.â
Related: Antisemitism in the Labour party was real and it must never be allowed to return | Margaret Hodge
Jacobs also said there was an âinferenceâ from media remarks made by the Labour MP Margaret Hodge that she agreed to stay a member of the party only if Corbyn was suspended. Only the party minutes and copies of any emails from Hodge to Starmerâs office would prove whether such a deal had been made, Jacobs said. âWe need the records.â
The Labour partyâs barrister, Rachel Crasnow QC, dismissed the application, saying the matter was a âstraightforward contractual disputeâ that did not require pre-release of any documents. Crasnow also disputed there had been any agreement to readmit Corbyn to the party while suspending the whip.
Crasnow argued in written submissions that Corbynâs âpurpose of obtaining early disclosure from the party is to advance a political, rather than a legal, positionâ.
The judge, Lisa Sullivan, said she would give her ruling on Corbynâs application âas soon as I canâ.