David Lammy attended his official swearing-in as Lord Chancellor while inviting a former Labour politician, Miranda Grell, who was convicted of spreading homophobic smears, reports BritPanorama.
During the ceremony held at the Royal Court of Justice, Lammy posed for photographs with Grell, 47, who was seated with his friends and family. This event marked Lammy’s appointment as both Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.
Grell gained notoriety following her 2007 conviction for falsely branding her political rival, Barry Smith, as a paedophile during a local election campaign in Waltham Forest in 2006. The accusations led to Smith fleeing his home due to threats and harassment from the community.
Court reports indicated that Grell publicly claimed that Smith was engaging in paedophilia and had a relationship with a minor. Despite evidence to the contrary—Smith lived with his long-term partner—Grell’s actions resulted in a significant legal fallout, including a three-year ban from public office and fines amounting to £4,000.
After her conviction, Grell trained to become a barrister and has since worked in various legal capacities, providing assistance to vulnerable populations. Notably, in 2014, she received recognition through the Law Centres Network’s Reita Clarke award for her community legal work.
In a recent social media post, Grell expressed her enjoyment of the ceremony, sharing that it was a privilege to be present with Lammy’s family and friends. She emphasized her longstanding friendship and support for Lammy, highlighting her commitment to making a difference in public service. A government source noted that since her conviction, Grell has retrained successfully and has maintained a legal career.
Grell has previously stated her intent to clear her name regarding the allegations for which she was convicted, maintaining her denial of the charges despite their impact on her political and personal life. The unfolding narrative continues to draw attention to the complexities surrounding Lammy’s appointment and the individuals associated with it.
The case underscores broader discussions regarding accountability and the implications of past actions in public service, sparking conversations about the vetting process for officials in sensitive positions.
