These criticisms centred on the replacement of the Chief Justice by the President of the Court of Appeal as Head of the Judiciary and the creation of a Judicial Services Commission to oversee the judiciary, which he has claimed, in the face of much learned opposition, can be controlled too easily by the Executive and in his view posed a threat to judicial independence. This stance has been heavily criticised by the Tribunal report. After the introduction of the new Constitution by the UK Government followed by the enactment of the Judicial Services Act, Chief Justice Schofield launched a Judicial Review into the changes. He subsequently withdrew this Judicial Review. A large costs order was made against him consequently by the very Court over which he presided over until his suspension. He has paid these costs. The Tribunal report is critical of Chief Justice Schofield for having taken this Judicial Review. He purported to have cancelled the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year (for which he is also criticised by the Tribunal report) without success as it was held by the newly appointed Head of the Judiciary. The dispute escalated further to involve leading members of the Gibraltar legal profession who intended proposing a vote of no confidence in the Chief Justice. The motion was never put and instead a complaint was made to the Governor. This complaint led to the Governor appointing the Tribunal to inquire into his removal for inability and misbehaviour. The Tribunal delivered a report suggesting there were grounds for his removal. Chief Justice Schofield was represented at the Tribunal hearings by Edward Fitzgerald QC, the Tribunal by Tim Otty QC, the Government by James Eadie QC and the Gibraltar lawyers who complained by Antony White QC with Robert Vasquez, a partner of Triay & Triay, lawyers in Gibraltar. Anne Schofield instructed a local barrister Charles Gomez to launch a libel lawsuit against Bar Association Chairman James Neish for making allegedly defamatory statements. Charles Gomez, having earlier ended his representation of her, she subsequently withdrew this lawsuit and now faces paying a substantial costs order made against her by the Supreme Court. This led to a bankruptcy notice issued against her, but proceedings have not commenced. Mrs Schofield has petitioned the European Court alleging breaches of her right to a fair trial and discrimination. Mrs Schofield has to pay £45,000 in costs after the Privy Council