An Italian princess has failed to get a Jersey judge thrown off her ongoing Royal Court case.
Socialite Camilla Crociani was previously found to have directed family wealth worth millions away from her sister with the help of her former filmstar mother, Edoarda.
The 2017 family feud case was a landmark judgment for the Royal Court, involving a trust worth $200million.
But, since then, Camilla Crociani, whose full title is Princess de Bourbon de Deux Siciles, has been embroiled in further legal proceedings stemming from the original case.
Now it’s emerged in a judgment published just this week that the Princess tried to get the presiding judge, Commissioner Julian Clyde-Smith, thrown off the case in February.
Among her criticisms, which included the “perfunctory length” of a hearing he had presided over, was an allegation that the Commissioner had shown “apparent bias” against her.
According to her representative Advocate David Steenson, this was shown in comments the Commissioner made during a brief discussion with the Advocate representing the plaintiff in the case, her sister Cristiana regarding the amount of time for the Princess to comply with an order to disclose documents.
“…Is that reasonable in terms of giving sufficient time? Even if she decides to comply? Is it very tight?’” [Advocate Steenson’s emphasis]
Considering whether the comments constituted “bias”, the Commissioner reflected in his judgment: “I do not think a fair-minded observer would conclude from those words that I was biased, but in any event, they have to be seen in context, in that in considering this time limit, the note of the meeting shows that I was concerned firstly as to whether she would have enough time to apply to set the disclosure orders aside should she so decide, and then secondly, if she decided to comply if she had enough time to do so. By raising these questions, I was concerned with the interests of Camilla and whether the time limits sought were fair.”
As the Princess was absent from the hearing in question, it was argued that the judge should therefore be responsible for being the “guardian” of her interests. But the Commissioner reflected that Ms Crociani’s legal representative could produce “no authority” to back up this claim.
The Commissioner said that Advocate Steenson further argued that “the Royal Court in the substantive proceedings and the Court of Appeal had made findings about Camilla when it was unnecessary to do so, and had implicated her when she had had no opportunity to respond to those allegations. All of this, he said, may have tainted my judgment…and heightened the need for me to consider more carefully her interests.”
Commissioner Clyde-Smith flatly dismissed this, however, declaring: “There is no substance in this submission.”
He subsequently declined to recuse himself.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.