In his critique of the career of Lord Hoffmann (‘Judging the Judges’, 23 April), Joshua Rozenberg presents an incomplete picture of his role in the Pinochet litigation.

It is true that the House of Lords uniquely set aside its own ruling which, by three votes (one of which was Lord Hoffmann’s) to two, denied General Pinochet immunity from prosecution and extradition for his atrocious crimes. A fresh panel of judges held that Lord Hoffmann was disqualified from voting because of his position as chairman and director of Amnesty International Charity Ltd, a company set up to raise funds for Amnesty International, which had intervened in the appeal.

It is also true that much trouble and expense would have been avoided if Lord Hoffmann had stood down (though apparently no one at the time suggested it) and he has never publicly explained why he did not.

Yet, as the law stood, his disqualification was far from clear. Never before had a judge been disqualified without a pecuniary or proprietary interest. Lord Hoffmann had neither of these. He was not a member of Amnesty International and had been invited to join the charitable company precisely because of his indisputable independence and impartiality. Pinochet’s lawyers never claimed that Lord Hoffmann was influenced by actual bias.

Facing the disastrous prospect of their client spending the rest of his life in a Spanish jail, his lawyers sought to extricate him by relying on Lord Hoffmann’s supposed conflict. Although they knew the relevant facts before the first hearing, their complaint was only made after the ruling against their client.

The lawyers cannot be blamed for devoting their considerable skill and energy to the defence of one of the most evil dictators of our time, responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of innocent people. Though opportunistic and legally problematic, their initiative was entirely legitimate.

Nor was it surprising that, in the international spotlight, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and his colleagues thought the reputation of our legal system was best upheld by throwing Lord Hoffmann to the wolves and having the immunity issue decided afresh by a new panel of judges. Ironically, the seven-judge panel which heard the appeal anew substantially repeated the majority ruling in which Lord Hoffmann took part, and this time by six votes to one. So, the manoeuvre which attacked the reputation of Lord Hoffmann failed: it did not save the General from extradition.

What saved him was another cunning manoeuvre. It too had its doubters but it worked. Medical reports claiming that Pinochet was unfit to stand trial were delivered to the home secretary. He revoked the extradition order and Pinochet went home. But that is another story...

Geoffrey Bindman (solicitor for Amnesty International in the Pinochet litigation), London