Relations between the executive, the judiciary and Parliament

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
81
independence is to be contrasted with the democratic accountability of legislature
and executive. But does their independence mean that the judges are not
‘accountable’ for their work, whether to Parliament, the executive or to the public?
Is judicial independence incompatible with any form of criticism? The next
sections examine the extent to which the position of the judiciary is protected in
law and constitutional practice.
(1)
Should the media be under any special requirement to respect the authority
of the judiciary?
35.
At one time, the common law on contempt of court enabled the courts,
albeit acting as judges in their own cause, to impose penal sanctions should a
newspaper or journal exceed the limits of permissible criticism of the judiciary.144
The law of contempt also applied to publications that might prejudice the holding
of a fair trial—for example, a newspaper publishing details of an accused person’s
previous convictions, casting doubts on the veracity of witnesses, or urging that
severe penalties should be imposed on the accused. The obligation of the press not
to prejudice the holding of a fair trial is reinforced by Article 6/1, ECHR.145
36.
The need for some limitation on freedom of the press as it affects the
judiciary is recognised by Article 10/2 ECHR, which permits freedom of
expression to be restricted by law where this is necessary in a democratic society
for (among other things) “the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining
the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” The common law on contempt of
court was modified by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, in response to the
decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sunday Times case.146 In
that case, a majority of the Court held that a ban imposed by the English courts on
publishing material relating to the thalidomide disaster (because of a pending civil
action against the manufacturers) was not necessary for maintaining the authority
and impartiality of the judiciary.
37.
Given the changes in the law made in 1981, and a more permissive attitude
to forthright discussion of current issues, the law on contempt of court has
virtually ceased to be a restraint on the severity of published comment on judges’
decisions. Certainly, an untrue press report that a judge had taken a bribe before
reaching his decision could give rise to an action in defamation; and press
disclosure of confidential information that in the interests of justice must be kept
secret could give rise to liability for contempt of court and possibly to an action for
breach of confidence by the person whose confidence had been broken. But the
situation would have to be exceptional for even an abusive and scurrilous critique
of the judiciary to be held to be in contempt of court.
38.
There is a continuing risk of sensational and one-sided reporting in sections
of the press. Responses from litigants or other interested parties may attempt to set
the record straight. But when a court decision has been given sensational
treatment of this kind, it will not generally be possible for the judge to reply.
Indeed, the judge’s decision with reasons will usually have been given in open
court. Even if the judge should wish to correct any misunderstanding of the
                                                                                                                                   
144 In 1928 the New Statesman was found guilty of contempt for publishing a pungent comment on the
inability of Avory J to conduct a fair trial of a libel action against Dr Marie Stopes.
145 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is
entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law”.
146 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 245.
82
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
decision, the judgment itself should have emphasised the factors that explain an
unexpected or controversial outcome. If the judge at first instance gets it wrong,
the mistake can be corrected by means of an appeal. If no appeal is brought, and a
putative mistake of law remains uncorrected, legal journals may comment on the
error. In general, the hope must be that good reporting of decided cases will in
time come to prevail over selective or biased reporting.
39.
It may be that the new presidential responsibilities of the Lord Chief Justice
will, in the interests of greater public understanding, enable a statement to be
issued when damaging mistakes have been made in press reports of a judgment.
The Judges’ Council may also have a role to play. But such action will not in itself
remedy persistent misreporting that intentionally presents a judge or judges in a
bad light. The unavoidable conclusion may be that this is an aspect of press
freedom to which judges, along with other public figures, must become
accustomed.
(2)
What limits apply or should apply to criticism of the judiciary in
Parliament?
40.
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights provides the fundamental building-block in
the relationship between the courts and Parliament:
“the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any court of place out of
Parliament”.
Accordingly, no court could penalise or impose liability for statements made in
Parliament that judges in general were corrupt, that a judge had committed sexual
offences with young people147 or that an accused person facing trial was manifestly
guilty and should spend the rest of his life in prison.
41.
Nevertheless, Article 9 does not prevent the two Houses from exercising
control over what their members say in Parliament. An important example of such
control for present purposes is the sub judice rule, which bars members from
referring to civil or criminal cases in which proceedings are active in United
Kingdom courts. The rule has developed for three main reasons:
(a) to avoid a risk of prejudicing court proceedings in individual cases;
(b) the principle of comity between the courts and Parliament; and
(c) the need to demonstrate that the judiciary operates independently of political
pressures.
The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 examined the need for
the sub judice rule, and concluded:
“[It] is not only a question of prejudicing a fair trial. Parliament is in a
particularly authoritative position and its proceedings attract much
publicity. The proper relationship between Parliament and the courts
requires that the courts should be left to get on with their work. No
matter how great the pressure at times from interest groups or
constituents, Parliament should not permit itself to appear as an
alternative forum for canvassing the rights and wrongs of issues being
                                                                                                                                   
147 This example is based on an unfortunate affair in the Australian Senate, where a senator abused his
freedom of debate by accusing a senior judge of sex offences against young boys, deliberately withholding
the name of the judge until the last sentence of his speech. A week later, the senator withdrew his
allegations, and apologised for having made them: see E Campbell and M Groves, “Attacks on judges
under parliamentary privilege: a sorry Australian episode” [2002] Public Law 183.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
83
considered by the judicial arm of the state on evidence yet to be
presented and tested.”148
42.
The report of the Joint Committee caused both Houses to look again at the
sub judice rule. Resolutions embodying a revised form of the rule were adopted in
the Lords on 11 May 2000, and on 15 November 2001 by the Commons. The
rule, which does not apply to debates on primary or delegated legislation, is
subject to the Speaker’s discretion and provides for certain exceptions, in
particular when a ministerial decision is in question or where a case in the opinion
of the Chair concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public
order or the essential services. The rule has recently been examined by the House
of Commons Committee on Procedure: the Committee agreed that the rule be
maintained, subject to some greater flexibility in the exercise of the Speaker’s
discretion. The Committee reminded MPs that they should not say anything on
the floor of the House that would affect evaluation of the merits of proceedings
which were imminent or before the courts, or would influence the result of
proceedings, in particular the likelihood of an acquittal.149
43.
The sub judice rule ceases to apply when civil or criminal proceedings
relating to a matter are no longer active. Thus the rule does not prevent the
members of either House from raising matters concerning the merits of court
decisions that have already been made, so long as no appellate proceedings are
active. There is however a long-standing rule of the House that, unless discussion
is based on a substantive motion on which a vote could be taken (which in this
context would generally mean a motion calling for a judge to be dismissed),
members may not cast reflections on the conduct or motives of a judge or upon
judges generally.150 In 1987, when the Prime Minister (Mrs Thatcher) said at
question time that she was unable to comment on a particular sentence imposed
by a judge, the Speaker subsequently ruled:
“It is perfectly in order to criticise or to question a sentence: but it is not
in order to criticise a judge. That has to be done by motion.”151
Although the requirement of a substantive motion may create a real difficulty
where neither the Government nor opposition parties are willing to find time for
debate of the motion, determined back-benchers may be able to find ways (for
instance, by way of an early day motion) of putting on record the substance of
their criticisms of a judge.
44.
Rodney Brazier’s account of these matters in 1994152 concluded that these
arrangements
“in general represent a sensible balance between judicial freedom from
wrongful parliamentary pressure and Parliament’s rights in relation to
the administration of justice.”
However, the rules under discussion do not deal with a current question of some
importance, namely whether judges should appear before select committees that
are inquiring into topics in which the performance of the courts is in question.
Moreover, Professor Brazier also had in mind the conventional rules that apply to
                                                                                                                                   
148 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, First Report of Session 1998–99, para 192.
149 First Report of Committee on Procedure HC 125 (2004–05); Second Report of Committee on Procedure
HC 714 (2005–06).
150 Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 23rd edn, 2004, pp 386–7, 438–9.
151 HC Deb, 2 July 1987, col 641.
152 In his book, Constitutional Practice (2nd edn, 1994), at p 280.
84
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
Ministers, and emphasised that Ministers are subject to restrictions that do not
apply to backbench members.
(3)
What limits apply or should apply to criticism of the judiciary by the
Executive?
45.
One aspect of the constitutional relationships under discussion that has
recently caused concern is the extent and manner of criticisms made by Ministers
of judicial decisions. In particular, concern has arisen in two areas – decisions of
the courts in judicial review cases involving the Human Rights Act, and the
sentencing of convicted offenders.
46.
Where a court on judicial review holds a government policy or an executive
decision to be unlawful, the Government has the usual right of an unsuccessful
litigant to seek leave to appeal, if necessary to the House of Lords. The appeal
process will determine the merits of the legal issues concerned, and this is the right
course for a Minister to take when a decision has been made on a matter of
departmental importance. What is not acceptable is for a Minister to react to an
unfavourable decision by blaming the judges, casting doubt on their integrity,
alleging that they are intentionally thwarting the wishes of Parliament or claiming
that they have taken leave of their senses. Nor ought Ministers to instigate or
condone hostile criticism of a judge in the media through off-the-record briefing
that will cause some newspapers to pillory the judge concerned.
47.
Moreover, when proceedings are pending before a court or tribunal, a
Minister should not publicly call for a certain outcome (as occurred within recent
weeks when a Minister asserted that a Muslim class-room assistant in dispute with
her employers over the wearing of the veil must be dismissed).153 It would be
equally wrong for a Minister to demand that an accused person who was on trial
for a criminal offence should be convicted.
48.
Recent incidents arising from three cases where Ministers intervened with
comments about the Human Rights Act have been examined by the Joint
Committee on Human Rights.154 The only one of these incidents to involve
criticism of a judge was the case of the Afghani hijackers. The judge in the
Administrative Court was Sullivan J, and the ministerial comment was (in effect)
that he must have taken leave of his senses. On appeal by the Home Office, the
Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, noting that the case “has attracted a degree
of opprobrium for those carrying out judicial functions” and commending Sullivan
J for “an impeccable judgment”.155 After hearing evidence from the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Falconer, about the case, the Joint Committee found that the
Human Rights Act had been used “as a convenient scapegoat for unrelated
administrative failings within Government”. On the case of the Afghani hijackers,
the Committee observed:
                                                                                                                                   
153 The Minister’s comment was made at a time when the case had been fully heard by an employment
tribunal and the decision was pending. The final paragraph of the tribunal decision, announced on 19
October 2006, states: “Since preparing this Judgment and Written Reasons, this claim has, since 13
October 2006, become the subject of intense and extensive coverage by local and national newspapers and
radio and television. It is most unfortunate that politicians and others have made comments on a case that
was sub judice. The Tribunal wish to put on record that all the findings of fact and our conclusions were
completed by close of business on 6 October 2006, so that none of the comments reported in the media
have in any way affected our judgment.”
154 See para 23 above.
155 See R(S) v SSHD [2006] EWHC 1111 Admin (Sullivan J) and (on appeal) [2006] EWCA Civ 1157.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
85
“In our view high level ministerial criticism of court judgments in
human rights cases as an abuse of common sense, or bizarre or
inexplicable, only serves to fuel public misperceptions of the Human
Rights Act and of human rights law generally”.156
49.
The Sweeney case in June 2006 was examined by the House of Commons
Constitutional Affairs Committee.157 The Home Secretary had expressed strong
criticism of the sentence given to Craig Sweeney by Judge John Griffith Williams
QC, after he had pleaded guilty to abducting and sexually assaulting a 3-year old
girl. The situation was not helped by a statement on radio by the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State (Vera Baird QC) to the effect that the judge’s sentence
was wrong. This was promptly followed by correspondence between the Minister
and the Lord Chancellor, in which she withdrew her comments and acknowledged
that they should not have been made. Annex 2 to this paper contains an extract
from the evidence given by the Lord Chancellor to the Constitutional Affairs
Committee. Annex 3 contains the text of a letter sent by the Lord Chief Justice to
circuit judges dated 19 June 2006. Such a letter may have raised their morale, but
would not bring to the public generally that it was not the error of a judge that had
caused the controversy.
50.
At one time, it was considered to be a constitutional convention that
members of the Executive would not criticise members of the judiciary. While the
Government might properly say that a court decision differed from the legal advice
on which it had acted or that it proposed to bring in amending legislation,
Ministers were expected not to state that a court’s decision was wrong, nor to
impute improper motives or incompetence to the court. To quote Brazier again,
writing in 1994:
“Ministers are by convention expected to show due inhibition when
commenting in Parliament on judicial words and deeds…”—
to which the author added the comment,
“It would never be proper for Ministers to criticise the judiciary outside
Parliament”.158
51.
The interpretation and effect of many conventions fluctuate over time. The
behaviour of some Ministers in recent years makes it necessary to consider whether
the convention stated by Brazier still survives, or whether it has merely lost some
of its former authority and been ignored.
52.
In 1995, there was a period of acute tension between the Home Secretary
(Mr Michael Howard) and the judiciary, resulting from a series of judicial review
decisions involving the Home Office.159 Criticisms of the judiciary by Mr Howard
were accompanied by attacks launched by several newspapers on judicial review,
on the judiciary in general, and on individual judges. The Times (3 November
1995) said,
“it is tempting to observe a pattern emerging, a potentially alarming hostility
between an over-mighty executive and an ambitious judiciary”.
                                                                                                                                   
156 Note 22 above, para 21.
157 See transcript of evidence given by the Lord Chancellor to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, HC
1060-iii.
158 R Brazier, Constitutional Practice (2nd edn, 1994), p 275.
159 A Le Sueur, “The Judicial Review Debate: from Partnership to Friction” (1996) 31 Government and
Opposition 8.
86
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
53.
In February 2003, the Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett, reacted with
anger to a decision of Collins J upholding the right of six asylum-seekers to receive
support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), an agency of the
Home Office.160 The case arose under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration
and Asylum Act 2002, which prevented the Home Secretary from granting
support to certain asylum-seekers but empowered him to grant support to them
where this was necessary for avoiding a breach of their Convention rights. In the
absence of a right of appeal against a refusal of support by NASS, the flood-gates
opened to a torrent of claims for judicial review. The decision by Collins J led
Mr Blunkett to say on radio:
“Frankly, I’m personally fed up with having to deal with a situation
where Parliament debates issues and the judges then overturn them”.
In a newspaper article, he said that it was “time for judges to learn their place”.
The Daily Mail, along with some other newspapers, complained that Collins J
“had chosen to set his will above Parliament’s”. A Labour MP wrote in the Express
on Sunday, “We’re used to lawyers trying to bend the rules. What is not so easy to
forgive is the destructive activity of a judge.”
55.
In dealing with the Home Secretary’s appeal in this case, the Court of
Appeal explained that the task of the courts was to interpret the laws made by
Parliament, and commended “the care with which, in his lengthy judgment, [the
judge] addressed the difficult issues before him”.161 The judgment of Collins J was
largely upheld, although not entirely, but the court endorsed the view that the
Home Office’s decision-making failed the test of fairness. Later, when other cases
reached the House of Lords, section 55 was considered by the Law Lords to be
inherently likely to cause the Home Secretary to breach the right of a destitute
asylum-seeker not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. The same
view of the section had been taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights
when the proposed clause was rushed through Parliament without adequate
debate.162 Some aspects of this episode were highly specific to the immediate
context, but the affair vividly illustrates the need for an independent judiciary able
to interpret the laws made by Parliament, particularly when Ministers do not
appear to understand the constraints that apply to their policies, or indeed the full
content of legislation that they proposed to Parliament.
56.
It is not known whether Lord Irvine, Lord Chancellor at the time of
Mr Blunkett’s attack upon Collins J, intervened with his Cabinet ministerial
colleague. But some months later, Lord Irvine referred to the role of the executive
under the HRA and said:
“But what about when the courts disagree with the executive? In a
democracy under the rule of law, it is not mature to cheer the judges
when a win is secured and boo them when a loss is suffered. Under the
previous administration, the public would have been forgiven for
thinking that on occasions the executive and the judiciary had ceased to
be on speaking terms. In the latter two years of the last government,
there was unprecedented antagonism between judiciary and government
over judicial review of ministerial decisions. Some Conservative
politicians even went so far as to call judicial review into question. We
                                                                                                                                   
160 See R (Q) v Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 195 Admin. For an account of these events, see A W Bradley,
“Judicial Independence under Attack” [2003] Public Law 397.
161 R (Q) v Secretary of State [2003] EWCA Civ 364; [2003] 2 All ER 905.
162 23rd Report, Joint Committee on Human Rights, (2001–02), para 15.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
87
have come a long way since then and the Human Rights Act has helped
us do so”.163
Later, in evidence to a House of Commons committee, Lord Irvine gave an
‘absolute assurance’ that while Lord Chancellor he had frequently argued within
government to insist that judicial independence was upheld.164
57.
While it is certain that recent governments have found it difficult to
welcome decisions on judicial review to which Ministers are opposed, it is not
possible to assess the extent to which Lord Chancellors have had to intervene in
such moments of strain. But the record since the mid-1990s set out above suggests
that some Ministers today find their constitutional duties in this respect to be
irksome. Today, as has been seen above, all Ministers are required by the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, s 3(1) to “uphold the continued independence of
the judiciary”. If the earlier convention that Ministers should not criticise the
judiciary has been seriously eroded, as it seems to have been, steps are needed to
re-state the convention in the light of that statutory duty.
58.
Since this is primarily, but not exclusively, a question that affects the
conduct of Ministers, it would be appropriate for a new chapter to be included in
the Ministerial Code that would make a full statement for the guidance of Ministers
and their advisers of their obligations in respect of the judiciary. It should
include—
(a) a statement of the implications of sections 1 (rule of law) and 3 (judicial
independence) of the CRA for Ministers and their advisers, including the special
role that the Act prescribes for the Lord Chancellor;
(b) a statement of the sub judice rule from Parliament, but adapted for a ministerial
context, emphasising the need to avoid intervening with comments that might
prejudice the outcome of a current or pending trial or hearing; the rule should go
further than the rule in Parliament by applying not only to court proceedings but
also to tribunal proceedings;
(c) a statement of the limitations that ought to apply to comment on and criticism
of decisions that have been made by courts or tribunals;
(d) a reminder of the respect that Ministers, as members of the executive, should
extend to the courts and the judiciary;
(e) a suggestion that Ministers should seek advice if necessary on the legal issues
involved before making off-the-cuff comments on current or recent court and
tribunal proceedings; that advice should be available both within departments and
also from the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General.
It is indeed remarkable that the Ministerial Code is at present silent on the subject
of relations with the judiciary.165 The inclusion of a statement on these lines in the
Ministerial Code would have the further advantage of making it readily available to
the advisers of all members of the Government.
                                                                                                                                   
163 Lord Irvine of Lairg, “The Impact of the HRA: Parliament, the Courts and the Executive” [2003] PL 308,
323.
164 Evidence to the House of Commons Committee on the Lord Chancellor’s Department, 2 April 2003.
165 The Ministerial Code, para 1.1: “Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave according to the highest
standards of constitutional and personal conduct in the performance of their duties.” Para 1.2: “This Code
provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold these
standards. It lists the principles which may apply in particular situations drawing on past precedent…” The
duties of Ministers in relation to the judiciary plainly come within these objectives.
88
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
G.
Conclusions
59.
This is a long paper, but it has not dealt with all the issues that are relevant
to this ‘short inquiry’ by the Committee on the Constitution. Thus I have not
mentioned participation by judges in the media, the use of judges for governmental
inquiries, or the appointment of judges to such posts as the Intelligence Services
Commissioner under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Although I
have dealt separately with the implications of the CRA 2005 and the HRA 1998,
an integrated picture of the changing position of the judiciary would require these
two very different Acts to be taken into account together. A comprehensive
assessment would include the role of national courts in respect of EU law, and
possibly also the effects of devolution.
60.
Despite the political controversies that have arisen in relation to the HRA,
and although the internal balance between Parliament, Executive and the judiciary
has changed because of that Act, an appraisal of the present role of the judiciary
would in my view be incomplete without some recognition of the way in which the
judges have answered the difficult questions that arise from the HRA and the
ECHR. The case-law includes some remarkable judgments that have fully justified
the aim of the Act in enabling United Kingdom judges to contribute to the
developing understanding of human rights protection in the 21st Century.
ANNEX 1
Joint Committee On Human Rights Thirty-Second Report (2005–06): The
Human Rights Act: the DCA and Home Office Reviews
Summary
Introduction
In May 2006 there was public controversy over the Human Rights Act 1998
(HRA). Three high-profile cases led some to argue that the HRA, or the way it
was being interpreted, was preventing the Government from ensuring public
safety, and that it should be repealed or amended. The Prime Minister asked the
Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary to conduct reviews of the impact of the
HRA. He also asked the Lord Chancellor to “devise a strategy, working with the
judiciary, which maintains the effectiveness of the HRA, and improves the public’s
confidence in the legislation”, and asked the Home Secretary “to consider whether
primary legislation should be introduced to address the issue of court rulings
which overrule the government in a way that is inconsistent with other EU
countries’ interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
(paragraphs 1–2).
On 18 May the Joint Committee on Human Rights decided to conduct an enquiry
into “the case for the Human Rights Act”. In October 2006 we also decided to
inquire into the human rights implications of Home Office proposals drawing in
part on its internal review of the impact of the Human Rights Act and the
European Convention on Human Rights on decision making in the criminal
justice, immigration and asylum systems. We also raised with the Home Secretary
the Chahal judgment. We took oral evidence from the Lord Chancellor and
Baroness Scotland on 30 October. The main purpose of this Report is to inform
Parliament about the Government’s recent reviews of the Human Rights Act
(paragraphs 3–8).


RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
89
Events giving rise to the Reviews
In our view, none of the three cases which sparked controversy—the Afghani
hijackers’ judgment, the Anthony Rice case and the failure to consider foreign
prisoners for deportation—demonstrates a clear need to consider amending the
Human Rights Act. The Lord Chancellor agrees and confirms it is the view of the
Government as a whole that none of them justifies amendment or repeal of the
HRA. We very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s assurance that there is now
an unequivocal commitment to the Human Rights Act across the Government,
but, in our view, public misunderstandings will continue so long as very senior
Ministers make unfounded assertions about the Act and use it as a scapegoat for
administrative failings in their departments (paragraphs 9–41).
The DCA Review
We welcome the DCA Review which in our view makes a fair and balanced
contribution to the debate, and the Home Office’s unequivocal acceptance that the
HRA has not impeded in any way the Government’s ability to protect the public
against crime. Although the Review does conclude that the HRA has had a impact
on the Government’s counter-terrorism legislation, mainly because of the Chahal
case, we also welcome the Lord Chancellor’s conclusion that the HRA has not
significantly inhibited the state’s ability to fight terrorism. We believe the
Government has policy options to counter the terrorist threat in a way compatible
with the UK’s human rights obligations. We welcome the Lord Chancellor’s
acceptance that the HRA has not had any adverse impact on the Government’s
policy on immigration or asylum (paragraphs 42–48).
The DCA review records a significant beneficial effect of the HRA on
development
of
policy
by
Government.
We
welcome
the
Review’s
acknowledgment of the importance of good guidance on human rights
compatibility in policy-making, the DCA’s embrace of a championing role in
relation to human rights and its publication of guidance for officials in public
authorities. We also welcome the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to consult us on
draft human rights guidance in future (paragraphs 49–59).
The DCA Review concludes that the HRA has not significantly altered the
constitutional balance between Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. We
welcome the Lord Chancellor’s acknowledgment that it should be possible to give
fuller reasons explaining the Government’s view of the compatibility with human
rights obligations of proposed new legislation. We favour a free-standing Human
Rights Memorandum based on the existing ECHR memorandum edited if
necessary to protect the Government’s legal professional privilege (paragraphs 60–66).
The DCA Review states that the HRA has been widely misunderstood by the
public and seeks to debunk some myths. We agree that there clearly exists a public
perception that the HRA protects only the undeserving, at the expense of the law-
abiding majority. We welcome the Review’s proposal to be proactive in debunking
myths. In our view, the public’s commitment to human rights, and to the HRA,
depends on wider dissemination of positive examples the HRA is making in
practice, e.g. for those in residential homes, the disabled, carers and council
tenants (paragraphs 67–80).
The DCA Review rules out withdrawing from the ECHR or repealing the HRA
but does not rule out amending the HRA. We welcome the fact that the Lord
Chancellor sees no current need to amend the HRA as contemplated in the
Review and are clear that there is no need to amend the HRA or introduce specific
legislation to clarify that public safety comes first (paragraphs 81–85).
90
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
We asked the Lord Chancellor to consider primary legislation to clarify the
interpretation of “public authority” under the HRA. Though not ruling out the
possibility, he preferred a case-by-case-approach. We were disappointed by the
Government’s new concern about driving private providers out of the market by
widening the definition of “public authority”. It seems seriously at odds with the
Government’s avowed intention elsewhere in the Review to make a positive case
for the HRA. We do not see insuperable obstacles to drafting a simple statutory
formula which makes clear that any person or body providing goods, services or
facilities to the public, pursuant to a contract with a public authority, is a public
authority for the specific purposes of the HRA (paragraphs 86–92).
We were very surprised the DCA’s “strategic review” of 2004 on implementing the
HRA has not been published and welcome the Lord Chancellor’s promise to think
about making a copy available confidentially to the Committee (paragraphs 93–96).
The Home Office Review
This Review has not been published. Baroness Scotland drew our attention to the
CJS Rebalancing Report. Most agencies in the criminal justice system found the
HRA helpful but also identified a “risk-averse culture” based on a “sometimes
cautious interpretation” of the ECHR and HRA. But there are few concrete
examples. We welcome proposals for practical steps to improve understanding of
how to implement the HRA and for a proactive approach to myth-busting. But in
our view the Home Office Review should be published. (paragraphs 97–107).
Rebalancing the Criminal Justice System
The premise of many of the Government’s proposals is that the HRA has led to
public safety being treated as of less importance than the human rights of terrorists
or criminals, or at least is perceived by the public to have had this effect. We
welcome the acceptance by Baroness Scotland that rebalancing must not be unfair
or unjust to the offender but better represent and support victims. Our concerns
about the Government’s attempt to overturn the Chahal case in the European
Court of Human Rights remain unalloyed. Attempting to distinguish between
inhuman and degrading treatment on the one hand and torture on the other is
unlikely to find favour, is unattractive and fails to solve the Government’s central
problem. We welcome the Government’s recognition that there is a question
whether the criminal justice system contains any in-built discrimination on racial
grounds. We also welcome the Government’s recognition that too many non-
dangerous people with mental health problems continue to be imprisoned
(paragraphs 108–125).
Reforming the IND
We consider human rights issues raised by the Home Secretary’s proposals,
notably over the intention to bring in a presumption that various categories of
foreign criminals will be deported. We are concerned by the Prime Minister’s
announcement of an automatic presumption of deportation, which raises the
prospect of deportation to a country where there is a real risk of treatment contrary
to Article 3 of the ECHR. On deportation of EU and EEA nationals, we are also
concerned that the Home Secretary may be blaming the courts for something laid
down by EU law. Finally, Baroness Scotland assured us there was no racial
profiling in deciding IND activity on high risk routes (paragraphs 126–137).
Building a Human Rights Culture
We believe that a culture of respect for human rights is a goal worth striving for.
We see the DCA Review as an important milestone in bringing one about. It

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
91
cannot be achieved exclusively through the courts, but needs shifts in public
perception. This in turn requires wider knowledge of the benefits of the HRA. But,
with the establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights
pending, there remain unresolved questions about how far a culture of human
rights is developing. We will pursue these issues during the remainder of this
Parliament (paragraphs 138–146).
ANNEX 2
Extract from oral evidence given to the House of Commons’ Constitutional
Affairs Committee, 4 July 2006
Q250 Jeremy Wright: Although you are no longer head of the judiciary, we know
that you still have an interest in the judiciary and are responsible for what happens
there. We also know that what has happened in the press recently has been a very
public and apparent argument between politicians and members of the judiciary.
Does it concern you that as a result of that very public spat the public may take a
different view of judges and lose a degree of confidence in them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think you are wrong to say that the problem was
necessarily a spat between the Government and judges. What has been happening
over a period of time is that a lot of people have been saying that part of the
problem in relation to sentencing is the judges. A variety of parts of the media has
been explicitly critical in blaming the judges for a number of things that have
happened in sentencing. I believe that that has had an impact in undermining
confidence in the judiciary. Separately from that, there have been reports of rows
between the judges and the executive. I should make it clear that neither the
judges nor the executive wants such rows, nor do they believe that there is any
such row going on between them. They are both as concerned as they could be to
ensure that public confidence in the judiciary is maintained. But it goes deeper
than that. If people think there are rows going on between different bits of the
state that undermines their confidence in the ability of the state as a whole to deal
with the problems that it has to face, for example terrorism and crime.
Q251 Jeremy Wright: Do you accept that clearly the judges are worried about this?
Several senior judges have expressed concerns about politicians—I do not refer
specifically to the Government but politicians generally—interfering in judicial
matters and making comments upon decisions in individual cases. Do you not
believe that that is causing a potential problem of public confidence?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Judges have been careful not to criticise politicians at
any stage. I have made comments to the effect that the judges should not be made
the whipping boys for various problems. For example, the other day there was a
rather graphic piece in either the Daily Telegraph or The Times in which a judge
said that it might be time for him to resign and go off into the Thames or
something like that. Earlier in the same article it was said that an unnamed part-
time judge was thinking of resigning. I know of such judge. I know of no judges
who are thinking of resigning because of that. Everybody involved, judges and
executive alike, is concerned to ensure that confidence is not lost but equally is
aware that these events occur from time to time and the important thing is to cool
the temperature, identify the policy issues and get on with solving them.
92
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
ANNEX 3
Letter from the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, to
Circuit judges, 19 June 2006
On behalf of the senior judiciary I want to share with you our grave concern at
recent media coverage of sentencing issues.
The judiciary—and circuit judges in particular—have unfairly borne the brunt of
this criticism. As we all know, much of it is unbalanced and plainly wrong, and the
principles which judges are required to apply when making their sentencing
decisions have been ignored. We have great sympathy for those judges who
individually have been singled out for intemperate personal attack.
The President of the Queen’s Bench Division and I … have been addressing and
continue to address these issues with the Lord Chancellor. Some of you will have
seen his answers during the Question Time programme on Wednesday evening,
and others will have heard his interview on the Today programme on Thursday
morning. These will have contributed to an improved public understanding of the
issues related to sentencing and we are grateful to him for putting the record
straight.
It is quite legitimate for the media and commentators to criticise any particular
sentence and the judiciary recognise and accept that. But they are entitled to
expect such criticism to be accurate and objective. Personal and unmerited attacks
on the characters of individual judges can only damage the public’s understanding
of, and confidence in, the criminal justice system as a whole. We will continue to
do what we can to counter such unfair and damaging criticism.
I and the senior judiciary would like to reassure you that judges who have been the
subject of unfounded media criticism have our sympathy and full support.
Further Paper by Professor Anthony Bradley
Summary
This paper has been written to consider whether and to what extent the content of
my earlier paper, “The new constitutional relationship between the judiciary,
Government and Parliament”, has been affected by the Government’s decision to
create the Ministry of Justice. While that decision is of constitutional significance,
and it affects the relationship between the Government and the judiciary that
resulted from the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, many of the expressed
concerns are about the practical consequences of the decision, and there is no clear
argument to be made against the proposed Ministry of Justice on constitutional
grounds. If adequate assurances are given by the Government that meet these
concerns, the assurances should be placed on the public record.
1. The Committee have given me the opportunity to consider whether changes or
additions are needed to my paper, “The new constitutional relationship between
the judiciary, Government and Parliament”, in light of the Government’s decision,
announced on 29 March 2007, to move responsibility for prisons and the
probation service from the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional
Affairs (to be re-named the Ministry of Justice), the changes to take effect on
9 May 2007.
2. The main aim of that earlier paper was to discuss the structure of relations
between the judiciary, on the one hand, and Government and Parliament, on the

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
93
other, resulting from the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. While the paper
assumed that the ministerial and departmental arrangements resulting from that
Act would continue, it did not discuss the manner in which the new statutory
functions of the Lord Chancellor would be performed within the Department for
Constitutional Affairs. However, the creation of a Ministry of Justice and the range
of functions of the Ministry will have implications for the position of the courts
and the judiciary that the Committee may wish to address.
3. The idea of a Ministry of Justice has received attention at various times since it
was recommended by the Haldane Report on the machinery of government in
1918.166 Proposals for such a Ministry in the years since then were usually blocked
by the argument that this was not necessary (or not desirable) because of the office
of Lord Chancellor, whose responsibilities were both executive and judicial in
character. Fears were expressed that the judiciary would be prejudiced were their
affairs to be handled by an ordinary Whitehall department. The idea of a Ministry
of Justice encountered opposition from the Home Office, because of the latter’s
historic responsibility for criminal justice and criminal law. Indeed, the difficulty of
how to locate responsibility in government for the criminal justice system
(including criminal law) has probably been the decisive factor that explains why a
Ministry of Justice for England and Wales has not been created until now.
4. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 both brought to an end the historic
combination of the Lord Chancellor’s judicial and executive functions, and
maintained the office in being but with defined statutory responsibilities relating to
the judiciary. It is significant that the Act gave special protection to these
responsibilities by excluding them from the customary “machinery of government”
power of the Prime Minister to re-organise Whitehall departments; in law, this
power is exercised by means of Orders in Council under the Ministers of the
Crown Act 1975. Primary legislation would be needed if the office of Lord
Chancellor in its new form were to be abolished or the powers and duties of that
office were to be transferred. But the office of Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs is not so protected, and primary legislation is not needed to give effect to
the Government’s recent decision. The office of Lord Chancellor will continue in
being, as required by the 2005 Act, but it will be held with the position of
Secretary of State for Justice, rather than that of Secretary of State for
Constitutional Affairs.
5. There was certainly a case to be made in 2003 for the decision then taken to
replace the former Lord Chancellor’s Department by the Department for
Constitutional Affairs (despite the inept way in which the re-organisation was
handled). There is also now a case to be made for re-naming the department and
for extending its responsibilities for criminal justice. But it is unfortunate that the
immediate cause of the Government’s decision appears to have been concern
about the administrative and political problems of the Home Office, rather than a
long-established and fully reasoned commitment to creating a Ministry of Justice.
It has long been the practice in British government for departmental structure to
change in response to political judgments made by the Prime Minister and in
                                                                                                                                   
166 Cd 9230, 1918. For comment on that report, and the controversy that it created, see R Stevens, The
Independence of the Judiciary: the view from the Lord Chancellor’s Office (1993, chap 2). In 1981 the Home
Affairs Committee of the House of Commons recognised the advantages of unifying the component parts
of the criminal justice system in a Ministry of Justice but Lord Hailsham, then Lord Chancellor, said: “I
regard myself as the Minister of Justice but I would not desire to have either the prosecuting process or the
penal treatment process under my responsibility because I think that they are incompatible”: quoted in J L
Edwards, The Attorney-General, Politics and the Public Interest (1984), p 193.
94
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
response to changing political circumstances. A further instance of this practice
was seen with the decision announced on 29 March 2007. Whereas departments
in Whitehall and their ministers must accept that their tasks may be re-shuffled at
short notice, the added factor here is the impact of the re-organisation on the
judiciary and the courts. At the least, it would appear that there was a lack of full
consultation with the judiciary before the decision was announced. Arguably,
private communication involving the Lord Chief Justice and his most senior
colleagues is not sufficient in a matter that may be seen as affecting the
constitutional position of the courts, so recently established by the 2005 Act. A
fuller and more open consultation could, for instance, have confirmed that the
changes do not in fact pose a threat to that position.
6. To move on from the question of consultation, while it will be a novelty in
British government to have a Ministry of Justice by that name, I do not consider
that there is a case to be made against such a ministry based on fears that this
might endanger the position of the judiciary. Reasons for this view include the fact
that many countries in western Europe have a Ministry of Justice, as indeed do
numerous Commonwealth countries (where the positions of Minister of Justice
and Attorney-General may be held together, as for instance in New Zealand).
Moreover, the relationship between judiciary and executive was placed on a new
statutory basis in 2005. In my view, the essential features of that relationship are
not affected by the new departmental structure.167 Indeed, but for the problem
presented by the Home Office’s responsibility for criminal justice, “Ministry of
Justice” would have been a suitable name for what in 2003 was created as the
Department for Constitutional Affairs.
7. What may have caused the greatest current concern is the placing of
responsibility for prisons and the probation service within the Ministry of Justice.
These matters are of an operational kind that distinguishes them from
responsibility for criminal law, relations with the courts and so on.168 The case for
moving these services to the Ministry of Justice appears in part to be the wish to
enable the Home Office’s remit to be re-focussed, and in part to enable there to be
a “joined-up” system of criminal justice. The points made for questioning that
approach include the following: (a) the Minister for Justice, who will also hold the
position of Lord Chancellor, will in all probability be appointed from the House of
Commons, and may have no legal qualifications; (b) resources available to the
courts and judicial system will suffer if within the same department they are
competing with funding for prisons; (c) administration of prisons will call for an
approach that is incompatible with the leading role played by the Ministry of
Justice in respect of human rights legislation, and will erode the Lord Chancellor’s
statutory commitment to maintain the rule of law; (d) the Ministry may wish for
political reasons to influence judicial practice on sentencing (for example, to
reduce the prison population), thus undermining the statutory commitment to
maintain judicial independence; (e) the ministerial attention that will need to be
given to the prisons may as a practical matter cause less time to be spent on other
aspects of the Ministry’s remit. Concerns of this kind about the future operation of
                                                                                                                                   
167 See the question about this asked of the Lord Chancellor by Lord Kingsland, on 26 April 2007 (HL Deb,
col 766).
168 The administration of the courts and of legal aid also involve operational matters, but they deal with
matters so closely related to the essential purposes for which courts exist that it is unlikely that policy
pressures would lead to decisions that would ignore those essential purposes, or run contrary to them. See
for instance the Courts Service Key Performance Indicators 2007–08 which were announced by the Lord
Chancellor to the House of Lords on 29 March 2007 (WS 170).

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
95
the new arrangements are of a practical kind and are difficult to assess by
constitutional criteria.
8. Evidence dealing with these matters has been given by the Lord Chancellor
(Lord Falconer) to committees in the House of Commons.169 Thereafter, he
assured the House that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, had made it clear
“that the senior judiciary have no objections in principle to the creation of a
Ministry of Justice, subject to the provision of safeguards to protect the
independent administration of justice”.170 However, Lord Woolf has given
evidence about his concerns to the Home Affairs Committee,171 in the course of
which, before expressing reservations about the decision, he said: “Obviously,
there is logic in having a ministry of justice”. Lord Woolf explained the importance
of the departmental changes by saying that there is “much more interplay between
the departments and courts than is sometimes appreciated”; and it had been
difficult to establish an effective sentencing policy “because of the highly political
nature of sentencing”.
9. It is, certainly, in the area of criminal justice, including sentencing, that the
most difficult questions for the structure of the justice system arise. As Lord
Falconer emphasised to the Commons’ Constitutional Affairs Committee on 17
April 2007, there will continue to be a trilateral relationship in government
involving (1) Home Office responsibility for protecting the public against crime,
for the incidence of crime, and for police and crime-detection; (2) the functions of
the Attorney-General in supervising the Crown Prosecution Service; and (3)
Ministry of Justice responsibility for the criminal law (both substance and
procedure, including evidence and modes of trial), criminal courts and judicial
process, and the penal system. In the course of his evidence, he said that one of the
strongest lessons learned by government since 1997 is that “all of the bits of the
criminal justice system – the police, the prosecutors, the courts and the prisons
and probation – have to work together as closely as possible” (emphasis supplied).
The qualification “as closely as possible” is from a constitutional viewpoint all-
important. The reason that the criminal justice system comprises distinct
components of police, prosecutors, courts and penal institutions is that a criminal
justice founded upon the rule of law and on the due separation of powers requires
both the existence of distinct functions, and also the development of separate
institutional and professional skills. Some forms of “working together” or
institutional co-operation would blur lines of demarcation (such as the process of a
fair criminal trial, where judicial impartiality is required as between the
prosecution and the defence).
10. It is essential that the judiciary and the criminal courts should not be drawn
into endorsing a simplistic approach to criminal justice in which current
administrative or executive wishes cause harm to the public image of the criminal
process. From this viewpoint, the leading role to be played by the Ministry of
Justice may be given a cautious welcome. It should, for instance, reduce the
tendency for government ministers to appear to blame the judges for problems
caused by recent legislation or by government policies.172 And it must be hoped
that it will curb the excessive tendency in recent years for the Home Office to
                                                                                                                                   
169 To the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 17 April 2007 and to the Home Affairs Committee on 24
April 2007.
170 HL Deb, 26 April 2007, col 767.
171 17 April 2007.
172 And cf the implied criticism of the judiciary in such Home Office statements as Rebalancing the Criminal
Justice System, July 2006.
96
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
resort to legislation by Parliament as a panacea for dealing with every new concern
in the media and public opinion over crime and sentencing decisions. What would
be less welcome would be a situation in which the Ministry of Justice is nominally
the lead department on matters relating to the criminal law, but the driving
political force remains with the Home Office. And it would be unfortunate if
problems arising in the operation of prisons were to cause the Ministry of Justice
to seek to place responsibility for the problems on the judges’ sentencing decisions.
It is relevant here to note that, as a result inter alia of European human rights law,
discretionary decisions determining the release of long-term prisoners are now
made by the Parole Board or by the judiciary, no longer by the Secretary of State.
11. I have already (in paragraph 8 above) quoted from the Lord Chancellor’s
recent statement confirming that the senior judiciary “have no objections in
principle to the creation of a Ministry of Justice, subject to the provision of safeguards
to protect the independent administration of justice” (emphasis supplied). The
Committee may wish to inform itself as to the concerns that gave rise to the need
for such safeguards and as to the safeguards that have been or will be given.
Assuming that adequate assurances are given to the Lord Chief Justice, it would be
appropriate for these to be placed on record, and this might possibly be best done
by the preparation of a revised form of the Concordat, that could take full account
of the creation of the Ministry of Justice.173
12. To conclude, my earlier paper remains relevant in the new situation caused by
the decision to create a Ministry of Justice, a decision that was made before the
new relationships resulting from the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 have had
time to settle down and stand the test of experience. The decision to create the
new Ministry is of some constitutional significance, and understandable fears have
been expressed about it, particularly in view of possible adverse effects upon the
judiciary and the machinery of justice, and the apparent lack of full consultation
with the judiciary. If acceptable assurances are given by the Government about the
future, they should become a matter of public record.
30 April 2007
                                                                                                                                   
173 See paragraphs 11 and 13 of my earlier paper.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
97
APPENDIX 5: PAPER BY PROFESSOR PAUL CRAIG: THE RULE OF
LAW
1. Introduction
This paper seeks to provide guidance concerning the meaning of the ‘rule of law’,
in the light of section 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which makes
explicit reference to that concept.
A ‘health warning’ is in order for anyone venturing into this area: a cursory glance
at the index of legal periodicals revealed 16,810 citations to books and articles
concerned with the rule of law, and that is certainly an underestimation, since
many articles discuss the concept in ways that might not necessarily be picked up
by the search engine and the number only covers legal material.
There is considerable diversity of opinion as to the meaning of the rule of law and
the consequences that do and should follow from breach of the concept. I will
nonetheless attempt to identify as objectively as possible different senses of the rule
of law.
2. Dicey’s Conception of the Rule Law
Modern conceptions of the rule of law will be considered below. It would however
be odd not to advert to Dicey’s conception,174 given the prominence that it has had
in the UK. It should nonetheless be realised that his conception of the rule of law
was ambiguous in certain respects.
Dicey’s first principle of the rule of law was that ‘no man is punishable or can be
lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law
established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. In
this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on
the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of
constraint’.
The first sentence requires that laws under which people are condemned should be
passed in the correct legal manner and that guilt should only be established
through the ordinary trial process. This is an important principle, although it
should be noted that nothing here speaks to the content of the laws which an
individual will have to face when taken before the courts. The meaning of the
second sentence is more problematic. The word ‘arbitrary’ could connote a clear
law, which was properly enacted by Parliament, but which might nonetheless be
regarded as arbitrary if it was thought to infringe certain fundamental rights, or if it
entailed excessive punishment. The word ‘arbitrary’ could alternatively be used to
describe a law passed in the correct legal manner, but where it was very vague or
unclear, with the result that individuals had no real idea how to plan their lives in
the light of the relevant legal rule. This sense of arbitrariness is independent of
whether the content of the legislation was just or unjust.
Dicey’s second principle of the rule of law concerns equality: ‘every man, whatever
be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable
to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals’.
                                                                                                                                   
174 The Law of the Constitution (10th ed, 1959).
98
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
This formulation is concerned primarily with equal access to the courts, not with
the nature of the rules which individuals find when they get there.175 It is true that
Dicey was explicitly against officials being accorded any special privileges, but
beyond this Dicey’s second principle does not take one very far. He showed little
concern with the role of law in deciding whether different rules applicable to
different groups were defensible on the ground that that there was some rational
justification for the difference in treatment.
Dicey’s third principle was that the unwritten constitution in the UK could be said
to be pervaded by the rule of law because rights to personal liberty, or public
meeting resulted from judicial decisions, whereas under many foreign constitutions
such rights flowed from a written constitution.
This third limb of the rule of law is ambiguous. It might be read to mean that a
society must possess certain individual rights if it is to conform to the rule of law.
The alternative reading was that if you wished to protect such rights then the
common law technique was better than that employed on the continent. Dicey
dealt in detail with the precarious protection of rights on the continent, where
constitutions enshrining rights would often be abrogated at the stroke of the pen or
the point of a sword. He felt that in the UK, where individual rights were the result
of numerous judicial decisions indicating when the individual was at liberty to
speak freely etc, it would be considerably more difficult for an authoritarian regime
to sweep these rights aside.
3. Modern Conceptions of the Rule of Law
The Diceyan view of the rule of law was therefore ambiguous in certain respects,
and similar uncertainties surround the historical meaning of the phrase
‘government of laws, not of men’.
The modern literature on the rule of law is, as noted above, extensive and diverse.
A number of different meanings of the rule of law can nonetheless be identified.
(a) The Rule of Law and Lawful Authority
A core idea of the rule of law to which all would subscribe is that the government
must be able to point to some basis for its action that is regarded as valid by the
relevant legal system. Thus in the UK such action would commonly have its
foundation in statute, the prerogative or in common law power. The relevant
measure would then have to be made by the properly authorised person or
institution, in the properly authorised manner
If the government cannot provide a legal foundation for its action then the UK
courts would regard the action as unlawful, since there would be no lawful
authority for it.
This core meaning of the rule of law tells one nothing as to the nature of the
challenged governmental action. The government might be seeking to achieve
some benign objective, or it might be attempting to do something that most would
regard as undesirable. This is irrelevant for the purposes of the present inquiry.
The measure would be equally contrary to the rule of law if the government could
not point to some basis for its action that would be regarded as valid by that legal
system.
                                                                                                                                   
175 G. Marshall, Constitutional Theory (Clarendon, 1971), p 137.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
99
(b) The Rule of Law and Guiding Conduct
The meaning of the rule of law considered in the preceding section is important,
but limited. Any law properly passed by Parliament would meet the rule of law
defined in this manner. Thus the fact that laws should be passed in the correct
legal manner is a necessary facet of the rule of law, but it is not sufficient.
It is for this reason that most would agree that the rule of law demands more than
this. A further important aspect of the rule of law is that the laws thus promulgated
should be capable of guiding ones conduct in order that one can plan ones life.
It is from this general precept that Raz deduced a number of more specific
attributes that laws should have in order that they could be said to comply with the
rule of law.176 All are related to the idea of enabling individuals to be able to plan
their lives. The ‘list’ includes the following: that laws should be prospective, not
retrospective; that they should be relatively stable; that particular laws should be
guided by open, general and clear rules; that there should be an independent
judiciary; that there should be access to the courts; and that the discretion which
law enforcement agencies possess should not be allowed to undermine the
purposes of the relevant legal rules.
The rule of law in the sense articulated here could be met by regimes whose laws
were morally objectionable, provided that they complied with the formal precepts
of the rule of law. It is equally the case that not all laws passed by a democratic
regime will necessarily comply with the rule of law.
The rule of law on this view is essentially a negative value, as Raz himself admits.
Given that the law can empower the state to do all manner of things the rule of law
minimises the danger created by the law itself. It does so by ensuring that whatever
the content of the law, at least it should be open, clear, stable, general and applied
by an impartial judiciary.
It would however be mistaken not to recognise the more positive side of the rule of
law when viewed in this manner. Even if the actual content of the law is morally
reprehensible, conformity to the rule of law will often be necessary to ensure that
individuals actually comply with the demands which the law imposes.
It is also important to recognise, as Raz emphasises, that the rule of law in the
above sense is only one virtue of a legal system, and may have to be sacrificed to
attain other desired ends. We may feel that the rule of law virtues of having clear,
general laws should be sacrificed if the best or only way to achieve a desired goal is
to have more discretionary, open-textured legal provisions. This may be so where
it is not possible to lay down in advance in the enabling legislation clear rules in
sufficient detail to cover all eventualities. Modifications to the rule of law in this
manner are not somehow forbidden or proscribed. Given that it is only one virtue
of a legal system it should not prevent the attainment of other virtues valued by
that system.
It is moreover important to be clear as to the consequences of breach of the rule of
law in the sense considered in this section. The fact that a law is vague or unclear,
and that it therefore provides little by way of real guidance for those affected by it,
will not lead to a statute being invalidated in the UK. The courts may well
interpret such a statute narrowly, in favour of the individual in such circumstances.
They might also read it down pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998, if the
particular statute would otherwise infringe rights derived from the European
                                                                                                                                   
176 ‘The Rule of Law and its Virtue’ (1977) 93 LQR 195.
100
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
Convention on Human Rights. If the courts felt unable to read it down, they could
issue a declaration of incompatibility under the HRA, and the matter would be
sent back to Parliament for reconsideration. The courts therefore have
considerable interpretive techniques at their disposal to ensure that legislation that
fails to meet the requirements of the rule of law set out above is construed
narrowly in favour of the individual. This does not alter the fact that UK courts
have not traditionally exerted power to invalidate an Act of Parliament on such
grounds.
The matter is different if the provision that fails to comply with the rule of law is
something other than a statute. There is nothing to prevent the courts from
invalidating other measures, whether they take the form of delegated legislation,
individual ministerial decisions, acts of local authorities or decisions of agencies. If
such a measure fails to comply with the requirements of the rule of law it is always
possible for the courts to use one of the principles of judicial review to annul the
measure. Thus if a minister purports to make a measure retrospective the courts
will require express authorisation from the enabling statute, or something closely
akin thereto, before they would be willing to accept that the minister’s powers
extended this far.177 Similarly, if the contested ministerial measure was very vague
or unclear the courts would have a number of options at their disposal. They
might decide that this was not consistent with the primary legislation; that it
should be annulled under section 6 of the HRA; that the vagueness of the measure
was indicative that the minister was acting for improper purposes; or that the
challenged measure was an unreasonable exercise of the discretionary power
vested in the minister.
Many would subscribe to the analysis presented above, although they might well
disagree either as to its application in any particular instance, or as to whether the
rule of law values should be ‘sacrificed’ to attain some other desirable goal.
There have however been more radical challenges by those who argue that the
formal conception of the rule of law was always a mask for substantive inequalities
in power, and that in the modern day this formal conception is in any event
increasingly unattainable.178
A key issue is whether the rule of law should encompass more than the formal
conception presented in this section. The contending arguments are complex, but
the essence of the disagreement can be presented as follows.
The rule of law as presented thus far is not concerned with the actual content of
the law, in the sense of whether the law is just or unjust, provided that the formal
precepts of the rule of law are themselves met. To put the same point in another
way, it is necessary on this view to consider the content of the law in order to
decide whether it complies with the precepts of the rule of law concerning clarity,
generality, non-retrospectivity etc, but provided that it does so comply then that is
the end of the inquiry.
The rationale for restricting the rule of law in this manner is as follows.179 We may
all agree that laws should be just, that their content should be morally sound and
that rights should be protected within society. The problem is that if the rule of
law is taken to encompass the necessity for ‘good laws’ in this sense then the
concept ceases to have an independent function. There is a wealth of literature
                                                                                                                                   
177 If there were express authorisation in the primary statute then it might be challenged under the HRA.
178 R. Unger, Law in Modern Society (Free Press, 1976), pp 176–181, 192–223.
179 Raz, n.3, 196.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
101
devoted to the discussion of the meaning of a just society, the nature of the rights
which should subsist therein, and the appropriate boundaries of governmental
action. Political theory has tackled questions such as these from time immemorial.
To bring these issues within the rubric of the rule of law would therefore rob this
concept of an independent function. Laws would be condemned or upheld as
being in conformity with, or contrary to, the rule of law when the condemnation or
praise would simply be reflective of attachment to a particular conception of rights,
democracy or the just society. The message is therefore that if you wish to argue
about the justness of society do so by all means. If you wish to defend a particular
type of individual right then present your argument. Draw upon the wealth of
literature which addresses these matters directly. It is however on this view not
necessary or desirable to cloak the conclusion in the mantle of the rule of law,
since this will merely reflect the conclusion which has already been arrived at
through reliance on a particular theory of rights or the just society.
(c) The Rule of Law, Justice and Accountable Government
The view presented above has however been challenged. Those who support the
opposing view accept that the rule of law has the attributes mentioned in the
previous section, but they argue that the concept has more far-reaching
implications. Certain rights are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of
law. The concept is used as the foundation for these rights, which are then used to
evaluate the quality of the laws produced by the legislature and courts.
It has also been argued that the rule of law provides the foundation for the controls
exercised by the courts over governmental action through judicial review. In this
sense the rule of law is expressive of how the state ought to behave towards
individuals in society. The rule of law is said to demand that governmental action
conforms to precepts of good administration developed through the courts, this
being an essential facet of accountable government in a democratic society. The
constraints imposed on government through judicial review are in part procedural
and in part substantive. The range of these principles varies, but normally includes
ideas such as: legality, procedural propriety, participation, fundamental rights,
openness, rationality, relevancy, propriety of purpose, reasonableness, equality,
legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality. There has been a
vibrant academic debate as to whether such principles must be legitimated by
reference to legislative intent. There is nonetheless general agreement that it is the
courts that have developed the principles of judicial review over the past 350 years.
This general view has been advanced by a number of writers and judges, although
the precise detail of their analyses differ.
Thus Dworkin has argued forcefully that subject to questions of ‘fit’, the courts
should decide legal questions according to the best theory of justice, which is
central to the resolution of what rights people currently possess.180 According to
this theory, ‘propositions of law are true if they figure in or follow from the
principles of justice, fairness and procedural due process that provide the best
constructive interpretation of the community’s legal practice’.181 It is integral to the
Dworkinian approach that, subject to questions of fit, the court should choose
between ‘eligible interpretations by asking which shows the community’s structure
of institutions as a whole in a better light from the stand-point of political
                                                                                                                                   
180 R. Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Fontana, 1986).
181 Ibid. p 225.
102
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
morality’.182 On this view an individual will have a right to the legal answer which
is forthcoming from the application of the above test.
Dworkin accepts the formal idea of the rule of law set out above, labelling this the
‘rule book’ conception. This requires that the government should never exercise
power against individuals except in accordance with rules which have been set out
in advance and made available to all.183 Such values feature in any serious theory of
justice.184 However as Dworkin notes, this says little if anything about the content
of the laws which exist within a legal system. Those who restrict the rule of law in
this manner care about the content of the law, but regard this as a matter of
substantive justice, which is ‘an independent ideal, in no sense part of the ideal of
the rule of law’.185
Dworkin argues that we should however also recognise a rights-based conception
of the rule of law. On this view citizens have moral rights and duties with respect
to one another, and political rights against the state. These moral and political
rights should be recognised in positive law, so that they can be enforced by citizens
through the courts. The rule of law on this conception is the ideal of rule by an
accurate public conception of individual rights. In the words of Dworkin, this view
of the rule of law ‘does not distinguish, as the rule book conception does, between
the rule of law and substantive justice; on the contrary it requires, as part of the
ideal of law, that the rules in the book capture and enforce moral rights’.186 It does
not mean that this conception of the rule of law is consistent with only one theory
of justice or freedom. There is no such argument. It does mean that it is not
independent of the particular theory of justice, or vision of freedom, which
constitutes its content at any point in time.
Similar themes have been advanced by Sir John Laws, writing extra-judicially. In
an important series of articles he articulated the role of the courts in the protection
of fundamental rights.187 The detailed nature of the argument is not of immediate
concern to us here. Suffice it to say for the present that Sir John Laws presented an
essentially rights-based conception of law and the role of the judge in cases
involving fundamental rights. He posited a higher order law which was binding on
the elected Parliament, with the courts as the guardian of both fundamental
individual rights, and what may be termed structural constitutional rights.188 The
thesis is premised on a particular conception of liberalism and individual
autonomy, with a divide drawn between positive and negative rights. The rule of
law is held to encompass an attachment to freedom, certainty and fairness. The
first of these elements is the substantive component of the rule of law, while the
second and the third bring in the more traditional attributes of the formal rule of
law.189
The important recent lecture by Lord Bingham on the rule of law is also relevant
in this regard, more especially because it was given against the background of the
                                                                                                                                   
182 Ibid. p 256.
183 R. Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (1985), pp 11–12.
184 Ibid. pp 12–13.
185 Ibid. p 11.
186 Ibid. pp 11–12.
187 ‘Is the High Court the Guardian of Fundamental Constitutional Rights’ [1993] PL 59; ‘Law and
Democracy’ [1995] P.L. 72; ‘The Constitution: Morals and Rights’ [1996] P.L. 622.
188 ‘Law and Democracy’, n.14; ‘Morals and Rights’, n.14.
189 ‘Morals and Rights’, n.14, pp 630–632.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
103
Constitutional Reform Act 2005.190 Lord Bingham articulates eight principles that
comprise the rule of law. Certain of these principles address the more formal
dimensions of the rule of law. These include the idea that the law must be
accessible, and so far as possible, intelligible, clear and predictable; that questions
of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law
and not the exercise of discretion; and that means should be provided for resolving
without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay bona fide civil disputes which the
parties themselves are unable to resolve.
It is however clear that Lord Bingham considers the rule of law as extending
beyond these basic precepts. He regards it as including the central idea that the
laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective
differences justify differentiation, and that it demands that the law must afford
adequate protection for fundamental rights. Lord Bingham expressly confronts the
objection advanced by Raz to the inclusion of fundamental rights within the rubric
of the rule of law, but disagrees with him in the following terms.191
A state which savagely repressed or persecuted sections of its people could not in
my view be regarded as observing the rule of law, even if the transport of the
persecuted minority to the concentration camp or the compulsory exposure of the
female children on the mountainside were the subject of detailed laws duly enacted
and scrupulously observed. So to hold would, I think, be to strip the existing
constitutional principle affirmed by section 1 of the 2005 Act of much of its virtue
and infringe the fundamental compact which … underpins the rule of law.
It is equally clear that Lord Bingham views the principles of judicial review as
having their foundation in the rule of law. Thus he states that ‘ministers and public
officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in
good faith, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred and without
exceeding the limits of such powers’,192 and ‘adjudicative procedures provided by
the state should be fair’.193
Jowell has also articulated a view of the rule of law, which has both a formal and a
substantive dimension.194 He accepts that one must be careful about equating the
rule of law with the substance of particular rules. He accepts also that a significant
part of the rule of law is concerned with procedure or form as opposed to
substance. Jowell does however believe that the rule of law has a substantive
dimension. He perceives the rule of law as a principle of institutional morality and
as a constraint on the uninhibited exercise of government power. The practical
implementation of the rule of law takes place primarily through judicial review. Its
substantive dimension is manifest in the judiciary’s willingness to strike down
administrative or executive action if it is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Allan’s interpretation of the rule of law also contains an admixture of formal and
substantive elements.195 He argues that we should go beyond the formal
conception of the rule of law, but that we should stop short of regarding the rule of
law as the expression of any particular theory of substantive justice. The rule of
                                                                                                                                   
190 Lord Bingham, ‘The Rule of Law’ The 6th Sir David Williams Lecture (2006).
191 Ibid. p 18.
192 Ibid. p 23.
193 Ibid. p 26.
194 ‘The Rule of Law Today’, in Jowell and Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution (Oxford University Press,
5th ed., 2000), Chap. 1.
195 TRS Allan, Constitutional Justice, A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2001).
104
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
law on this view does not entail commitment to any particular vision of the public
good or any specific conception of social justice, but does require that all legal
obligations be justified by appeal to some such vision. The rule of law should
embrace, in addition to its formal attributes, ideals of equality and rationality,
proportionality and fairness, and certain substantive rights. These are said to
constitute central components of any recognisably liberal theory of justice, while
leaving the scope and content of the rights and duties which citizens should
possess largely as a matter for independent debate and analysis. Formal equality is
to be supplemented by a more substantive equality, which requires that relevant
distinctions must be capable of reasoned justification in terms of some conception
of the common good. Allan’s theory also embraces certain substantive rights,
namely freedoms of speech, conscience, association, and access to information. It
is recognised that there will be other rights within a liberal polity, which should be
faithfully applied, but these are not regarded as a constituent part of the rule of
law.
It should be recognised that any approach of the kind under examination will
require some choice as to what are to count as fundamental rights, and the more
particular meaning ascribed to such rights. This choice will reflect assumptions as
to the importance of differing interests in society. This is unavoidable. It is of
course true that any democracy to be worthy of the name will have some
attachment to particular liberty and equality interests. If, however, we delve
beneath the surface of phrases such as liberty and equality then significant
differences of view become apparent even amongst those who subscribe to one
version or another of liberal belief. This leaves entirely out of account the issue as
to how far social and economic interests ought to be protected. It also fails to take
account of other visions of democracy, of a communitarian rather than liberal
nature, which might well interpret the civil/political rights and the social/economic
rights differently. It is therefore neither fortuitous, nor surprising, that in other
common law systems which possess constitutionally enshrined rights, such as the
United States and Canada, there is considerable diversity of opinion even amongst
those who support a rights-based approach, as to whether this should be taken to
mean some version of liberalism, a pluralist model, or a modified notion of
republicanism.
This point is equally true of ideas such as legality, rationality, participation,
openness, proportionality, procedural fairness and the like, which can be given
interpreted differently depending upon the more general scheme into which they
are to fit.
The consequences of breach of the rule of law in the sense considered within this
section should also be addressed. It is important, as when discussing other versions
of the concept, to distinguish between the consequences of breach of the rule of
law in relation to primary statute and in relation to other measures.
The short answer in relation to a primary statute that violates the rule of law is as
follows. The fact that a statute does not conform to this conception of the rule of
law does not in itself lead to its invalidation. The UK courts have not traditionally
exercised the power of constitutional review to annul primary statutes for failure to
conform to fundamental rights, or other precepts of the rule of law that constitute
the principles of judicial review. This proposition must nonetheless be qualified in
three ways.
First, there are statements by judges countenancing the possibility that the courts
might refuse to apply an Act of Parliament in certain extreme circumstances. The
examples tend to be of (hypothetical) legislation that is morally repugnant, or of

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
105
legislation through which Parliament seeks to re-order the constitutional structure
by abolishing judicial review, by making illegitimate use of the Parliament Acts or
by extending very considerably the life of a current Parliament. It should moreover
be recognised that the case law authority for the traditional proposition that courts
will not invalidate or refuse to apply statute is actually rather thin. There are to be
sure many judicial statements extolling the sovereignty of Parliament, but they are
principally just that, judicial statements rather than formal decisions. Insofar as
there are formal decisions that could be said to be based on the traditional
proposition, the facts of such cases were generally relatively innocuous. They were
a very long way from the types of case where courts might consider it to be
justified to refuse to apply a statute, which also means that such cases could be
readily distinguished should a court feel minded to do so.
Secondly, one who subscribes to the version of the rule of law discussed in this
section might well argue that courts should generally exercise the ultimate power
to invalidate statute for failure to comply with constitutionally enshrined rights, or
with rights that are regarded as fundamental or foundational even where they are
not formally enshrined in a written constitution. Dworkin is a prominent exponent
of this view. The literature on this topic is vast, with the debate for and against
such judicial power being replayed in successive academic generations.
Thirdly, courts or judges who subscribe to the conception of the rule of law
discussed in this section have in any event powerful interpretive tools at their
disposal through which to read legislation so that it does not violate fundamental
rights or other facets of the rule of law. Thus even prior to the Human Rights Act
1998, the courts made it clear through the principle of legality that statutes would
be read so as to conform to such rights. If Parliament intended to infringe or limit
fundamental rights then this would have to be stated expressly in the legislation, or
be the only plausible reading of the statutory language. Legislation was therefore
read subject to a principle of legality, which meant that fundamental rights could
not be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This was, said Lord Hoffmann,
because there was too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified
meaning might have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of
express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts would
therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to
the basic rights of the individual. Parliament had, therefore, to squarely confront
what it was doing and accept the political cost. An interpretive approach is clearly
evident once again in the Human Rights Act 1998, section 3, which provides that
‘so far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation
must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention
rights’. Section 3 does not, however, affect the validity, continuing operation or
enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation. Where a court is satisfied
that primary legislation is incompatible with a Convention right then it can,
pursuant to section 4 of the HRA, make a declaration of that incompatibility.
The consequence of breach of the rule of law in relation to measures other than
primary statute is more straightforward. Insofar as the rule of law is regarded as
the foundation of the principles of judicial review then it follows that breach of the
rule of law, manifested through breach of one of the more particular principles of
judicial review, can lead to annulment of the measure. This says nothing about
whether the judicial decision will be controversial or not. The great many judicial
review decisions generate no political controversy, but there will inevitably be
instances where Parliament, or more usually the relevant minister, feels that the
court’s judgment was ‘wrong’ in some way. There will more generally be wide-
106
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
ranging academic debate about the principles of judicial review and the way in
which they are applied in particular cases.
It is fitting to conclude this paper by reverting to Lord Bingham’s lecture, the
catalyst for which was the statutory mention of the rule of law in the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, section 1. The importance of the interpretive
tools used by courts is apparent once again in the following extract.196
[T]he statutory affirmation of the rule of law as an existing constitutional principle
and of the Lord Chancellor’s existing role in relation to it does have an important
consequence: that the judges, in their role as journeymen and judgment-makers,
are not free to dismiss the rule of law as meaningless verbiage, the jurisprudential
equivalent of motherhood and apple pie, even if they were inclined to do so. They
would be bound to construe a statute so that it did not infringe an existing
constitutional principle, if it were reasonably possible to do so. And the Lord
Chancellor’s conduct in relation to that principle would no doubt be susceptible,
in principle, to judicial review.
                                                                                                                                   
196 Lord Bingham, ‘The Rule of Law’, n.17, 4.

APPENDIX 6: DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY MADE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
Part 1: These are the declarations of incompatibility we are aware of which have been made under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in
respect of provisions in primary legislation, and which have not been overturned on appeal (although some remain subject to appeal—see the
“comments” column). Declarations of incompatibility which have been overturned on appeal are set out in Part 2 of the table below.
Case name and description
Date
Content of the declaration
Comments
R (on the application of H) v Mental Health
Review Tribunal for the North and East
London Region & The Secretary of State for
Health
(Court of Appeal)
[2001] EWCA Civ 415
The case concerned a man who was admitted under
section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and sought
discharge from hospital.
28 Mar
2001
Sections 72 and 73 of the Mental Health
Act 1983 were incompatible with Article
5(1) and 5(4) in as much as they did not
require a Mental Health Review
Tribunal to discharge a patient where it
could not be shown that he was suffering
from a mental disorder that warranted
detention.
The legislation was amended
by the Mental Health Act
1983 (Remedial) Order 2001
(SI 2001 No.3712)
(In force 26 Nov 2001)
 McR’s Application for Judicial Review
(Kerr J)
[2003] NI 1
The case concerned a man who was charged with the
attempted buggery of woman. He argued that the existence of
the offence of attempted buggery was in breach of Article 8.
15 Jan
2002
Section 62 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861 (attempted buggery),
which continued to apply in Northern
Ireland, was incompatible with Article 8 to
the extent that it interfered with consensual
sexual behaviour between individuals.
Section 62 was repealed in NI
by the Sexual Offences Act
2003, sections 139, 140,
Schedule 6 paragraph 4 and
Schedule 7.
(In force 1 May 2004)
International Transport Roth GmbH v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Court of Appeal, upholding Sullivan J)
[2002] EWCA Civ 158
The case involved a challenge to a penalty regime applied
to carriers who unknowingly transported clandestine
entrants to the UK.
22 Feb
2002
The penalty scheme contained in Part II
of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
was incompatible with Article 6 because
the fixed nature of the penalties offended
the right to have a penalty determined by
an independent tribunal. It also violated
Article 1 of Protocol 1 as it imposed an
excessive burden on the carriers.
The legislation was amended
by the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act
2002, section 125, and
Schedule 8.
(In force 8 Dec 2002)
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
107

Case name and description
Date
Content of the declaration
Comments
R (on the application of Anderson) v Secretary
of State for the Home Department
(House of Lords)
[2002] UKHL 46
The case involved a challenge to the Secretary of State
for the Home Department’s power to set the minimum
period that must be served by a mandatory life sentence
prisoner.
25 Nov
2002
Section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act
1997 was incompatible with the right
under Article 6 to have a sentence
imposed by an independent and
impartial tribunal in that the Secretary
of State decided on the minimum period
which must be served by a mandatory
life sentence prisoner before he was
considered for release on licence.
The law was repealed by the
Criminal Justice Act 2003,
sections 303(b)(I), 332 and
Schedule 37, Pt 8.
Transitional and new
sentencing provisions were
contained in Chapter 7 and
Schedule 21 and 22 of that
Act.
(Date power repealed 18
Dec 2003)
R v Secretary of State for the Home
Department, ex parte D
(Stanley Burnton J)
[2002] EWHC 2805
The case involved a challenge to the Secretary of State
for the Home Department’s discretion to allow a
discretionary life prisoner to obtain access to a court to
challenge their continued detention.
19 Dec
2002
Section 74 of the Mental Health Act
1983 was incompatible with Article 5(4)
to the extent that the continued
detention of discretionary life prisoners
who had served the penal part of their
sentence depended on the exercise of a
discretionary power by the executive
branch of government to grant access to
a court.
The law was amended by the
Criminal Justice Act 2003
section 295.
(In force 20 Jan 2004)
Blood and Tarbuck v Secretary of State for
Health
(Sullivan J)
Unreported
The case concerned the rules preventing a deceased
father’s name from being entered on the birth certificate of
his child.
28 Feb
2003
Section 28(6)(b) of the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
was incompatible with Article 8, and/or
Article 14 taken together with Article 8,
to the extent that it did not allow a
deceased father’s name to be given on
the birth certificate of his child.
The law was amended by the
Human Fertilisation and
Embryology (Deceased
Fathers) Act 2003.
(In force 1 Dec 2003)
108
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT

Case name and description
Date
Content of the declaration
Comments
Bellinger v Bellinger
(House of Lords)
[2003] UKHL 21
A post-operative male to female transsexual appealed
against a decision that she was not validly married to her
husband, by virtue of the fact that at law she was a man.
10 Apr
2003
Section 11(c) Matrimonial Causes Act
1973 was incompatible with Articles 8
and 12 in so far as it makes no provision
for the recognition of gender
reassignment.
In Goodwin v UK (11 Jul 2002)
the ECtHR identified the
absence of any system for legal
recognition of gender change
as a breach of Articles 8 and
12. This was remedied by the
Gender Recognition Act 2004.
(In force 4 April 2005)
R (on the application of M) v Secretary of State
for Health
(Maurice Kay J)
[2003] EWHC 1094
The case concerned a patient who lived in hostel
accommodation but remained liable to detention under
the Mental Health Act 1983. Section 26 of the Act
designated her adoptive father as her “nearest relative”
even though he had abused her as a child.
16 Apr
2003
Sections 26 and 29 of the Mental Health
Act 1983 were incompatible with Article
8, in that the claimant had no choice
over the appointment or legal means of
challenging the appointment of her
nearest relative.
These provisions will be
replaced by Part 1, Chapter 3
(clauses 24–27) of the Mental
Health Bill currently before
Parliament. The Bill was
introduced in the House of
Lords on 16 November 2006.
It completed its Lords stages
on 6 March 2007 and will now
pass to the House of
Commons.
R (on the application of Hooper and others) v
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Court of Appeal, upholding Moses J)
[2003] EWCA Civ 875
(The declaration was unaffected by subsequent House
of Lords ruling [2005] UKHL 29 on 5 May 2005)
The case concerned Widowed Mothers Allowance which
was payable to women only and not to men.
18 Jun
2003
Sections 36 and 37 of the Social
Security Contributions and Benefit Act
1992 were in breach of Article 14 in
combination with Article 8 and Article 1
of Protocol 1 in that benefits were
provided to widows but not widowers.
The law had already been
amended at the date of the
judgment by the Welfare
Reform and Pensions Act
1999, section 54(1).
(In force 9 Apr 2001)
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
109

Case name and description
Date
Content of the declaration
Comments
R (on the application of Wilkinson) v Inland
Revenue Commissioners
(Court of Appeal, upholding Moses J)
[2003] EWCA Civ 814
(The declaration was unaffected by subsequent House
of Lords ruling [2005] UKHL 30 on 5 May 2005)
The case concerned the payment of Widows Bereavement
Allowance to widows but not widowers.
18 Jun
2003
Section 262 of the Income and
Corporation Taxes Act 1988 was
incompatible with Article 14 when read
with Article 1 of Protocol 1 in that it
discriminated against widowers in the
provision of Widows Bereavement
Allowance.
The section declared
incompatible was no longer in
force at the date of the judgment
having already been repealed by
the Finance Act 1999 sections
34(1), 139, Schedule 20.
(In force in relation to deaths
occurring on or after 6 Apr 2000)
A and others v Secretary of State for the Home
Department
(House of Lords)
[2004] UKHL 56
The case concerned the detention under the Anti-terrorism,
Crime and Security Act 2001 of foreign nationals who had
been certified by the Secretary of State as suspected international
terrorists, and who could not be deported without breaching
Article 3. They were detained without charge or trial in accordance
with a derogation from Article 5(1) provided by the Human
Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001.
16 Dec
2004
The Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated
derogation) Order 2001 was quashed
because it was not a proportionate means
of achieving the aim sought and could not
therefore fall within Article 15.
Section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Act 2001 was incompatible
with Articles 5 and 14 as it was
disproportionate and permitted the
detention of suspected international
terrorists in a way that discriminated on the
ground of nationality or immigration status.
The provisions were repealed
by the Prevention of Terrorism
Act 2005, which put in place a
new regime of control orders.
(In force 11 Mar 2005)
R (on the application of Sylviane Pierrette
Morris) v Westminster City Council & First
Secretary of State
(Court of Appeal, upholding Keith J)
[2005] EWCA Civ 1184
The case concerned an application for local authority
accommodation by a single mother (a British citizen)
whose child was subject to immigration control.
14 Oct
2005
Section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996
was incompatible with Article 14 to the
extent that it requires a dependent child
who is subject to immigration control to
be disregarded when determining
whether a British citizen has priority
need for accommodation.
DCLG are considering how to
remedy the incompatibility.
110
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT

Case name and description
Date
Content of the declaration
Comments
R (Gabaj) v First Secretary of State
(Administrative Court)
(unreported)
The case was a logical extension of the declaration
granted in the case of Morris above, except that it was
the claimant’s pregnant wife, rather than the claimant’s
child, who was a person from abroad.
28 Mar
2006
Section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996
is incompatible with article 14 European
Convention on Human Rights to the
extent that it requires a pregnant member
of the household of a British citizen, if
both are habitually resident in the United
Kingdom, to be disregarded when
determining whether the British citizen
has a priority need for accommodation or
is homeless, when the pregnant member
of the household is a person from abroad
who is ineligible for housing assistance.
DCLG are considering how to
remedy the incompatibility.
R (on the application of Baiai and others) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
and another
(Silber J) [2006] EWHC 823 (Admin)
The case concerned the procedures, put in place to deal
with sham marriages, which persons subject to
immigration control are required to go through before they
can marry in the UK.
10
April
2006
Section 19(3) of the Asylum and
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.)
Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) is incompatible
with Articles 12 and 14 of the European
Convention on Human Rights in that the
effect of this provision is unjustifiably to
discriminate on the grounds of nationality
and religion and that this provision is not
proportionate. An equivalent declaration
was made in relation to Regulations 7 and 8
of the Immigration (Procedure for
Marriage) Regulations 2005 (which
imposed a fee for applications).
(Home Office Immigration Guidance was
also held to be unlawful on the grounds it
was incompatible with Articles 12 and 14
ECHR. This did not involve s4 HRA.)
The Home Office did not
appeal the judgment of Silber J
on Article 14 and are
considering how to remedy the
incompatibility with Article 14.
(A Home Office appeal to the
Court of Appeal on the Article
12 findings was unsuccessful:
[2007] EWCA Civ 478. They
are considering whether to
seek permission to appeal to
the House of Lords on that
issue.)
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
111

Case name and description
Date
Content of the declaration
Comments
R (on the application of (1) June Wright (2)
Khemraj Jummun (3) Mary Quinn (4) Barbara
Gambier) v (1) Secretary of State for Health (2
Secretary of State for Education & Skills
(Stanley Burnton J)
[2006] EWHC 2886 (Admin)
This case concerned the Care Standards Act 2000 Part
VII procedures in relation to provisional listing of care
workers as unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults.
16 Nov
2006
Section 82(4)(b) of the Care Standards
Act 2000 was incompatible with Articles
6 and 8.
The judgment is subject to
appeal by the Department of
Health.
R (Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department; Secretary of State for the Home
Department v Hindawi and Another
(House of Lords)
[2006] UKHL 54
This was a conjoined appeal in which the appellants were
all former or serving prisoners. The issue on appeal was
whether the early release provisions, to which each of the
appellants was subject, were discriminatory.
13 Dec
2006
Sections 46(1) and 50(2) of the
Criminal Justice Act 1991 were
incompatible with Article 14 taken
together with Article 5 on the grounds
that they discriminated on grounds of
national origin.
The provisions had already
been repealed and replaced by
the Criminal Justice Act 2003
save that they continued to
apply on a transitional basis to
offences committed before 4
April 2005.
The Home Office is
considering how to remedy the
incompatibility in relation to
offences falling within that
transitional category.
Smith v Scott
(Registration Appeal Court, Scotland)
[2007] CSIH 9
This case concerned the incapacity of convicted prisoners
to vote under section 3 of the Representation of the People
Act 1983.

Section 3(1) of the Representation of the
People Act 1983 was incompatible with
Article 3 of the First Protocol to the
Convention on the grounds that it
imposed a blanket ban on convicted
prisoners voting in Parliamentary
elections.
The Court ruled that it was part
of the Court of Session for the
purposes of section 4 of the
Human Rights Act, and therefore
had power to make a declaration
of incompatibility under that
section. The Government is
112
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT

Case name and description
Date
Content of the declaration
Comments
considering the implications of
this ruling. Meanwhile the
Ministry of Justice is considering
how to remedy the
incompatibility in the context of
its current consultation on how to
respond to the ruling of the
European Court of Human
Rights in Hirst v UK.
Declarations of incompatibility made but overturned on appeal
Part 2: These are the declarations of incompatibility we are aware of which have been made under section 4 of the Human Rights Act
1998 in respect of provisions in primary legislation, but which were subsequently overturned on appeal.
Case name and court that made the
declaration
Date of
original
decision
Substance of declaration of incompatibility
Court that overturned
declaration
R (Alconbury Developments Ltd.) v
Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions
(Divisional Court, Harrison J & Tuckey L.J)
[2001] HRLR 2
The Secretary of State’s powers to determine
planning applications were challenged on the
basis that the dual role of the Secretary of State
in formulating policy and taking decisions on
applications inevitably resulted in a situation
whereby applications could not be disposed of by
an independent and impartial tribunal.
13 Dec
2000
The Secretary of State’s powers to determine
planning applications were in breach of Article
6(1), to the extent that the Secretary of State as
policy maker was also the decision-maker.
A number of provisions were found to be in
breach of this principle, including the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, sections 77, 78 and
79.
The House of Lords
overturned the declarations.
9 May 2001
[2001] UKHL 23
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
113

Case name and court that made the
declaration
Date of
original
decision
Substance of declaration of incompatibility
Court that overturned
declaration
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No.2)
(Court of Appeal)
[2001] EWCA Civ 633
The case concerned a pawnbroker who entered
into a regulated loan agreement but did not
properly execute the agreement so that the
permission of the court was required to enforce
it.
2 May
2001
Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act
1974 was declared incompatible with the Article
6 and Article 1 Protocol 1 by the Court of
Appeal to the extent that it caused an unjustified
restriction to be placed on a creditors enjoyment
of contractual rights.
The House of Lords
overturned the declaration.
10 Jul 2003
[2003] UKHL 40
Matthews v Ministry of Defence
(Keith J)
[2002] EWHC 13
The case concerned a navy engineer who
came into contact with asbestos lagging on
boilers and pipes. As a result he developed
pleural plaques and fibrosis. The Secretary
of State issued a certificate that stated that
M’s injury had been attributable to service
and made an award of no fault
compensation. The effect of the certificate,
made under section 10 of the Crown
Proceedings Act 1947, was to preclude the
engineer from pursuing a personal injury
claim for damages from the Navy due to the
Crown’s immunity in tort during that
period. The engineer claimed this was a
breach of Article 6.
29 May
2002
Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947
was incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR in
that it was disproportionate to any aim that it
had been intended to meet.
The House of Lords upheld
the Court of Appeal decision
to overturn the declaration.
13 Feb 2003
[2003] UKHL 4
114
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT

Case name and court that made the
declaration
Date of
original
decision
Substance of declaration of incompatibility
Court that overturned
declaration
R (Uttley) v Secretary of State for the
Home Department
(Moses J)
[2003] EWHC 950
The case concerned a prisoner who argued that his release
on license was an additional penalty to which he would
not have been subject at the time he was sentenced.
8 Apr
2003
Sections 33(2), 37(4)(a) and 39 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1991 were incompatible with the
claimant’s rights under Article 7, insofar as they
provided that he would be released at the two-
thirds point of his sentence on licence with
conditions and be liable to be recalled to prison.
The House of Lords
overturned the declaration.
30 Jul 2004
[2004] UKHL 38
R (on the Application of MH) v
Secretary of State for Health
(Court of Appeal)
[2004] EWCA Civ 1609
The case concerned a patient who was detained
under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983
and was incompetent to apply for discharge from
detention. Her detention was extended by
operation of provisions in the Mental Health Act
1983.
3 Dec
2003
Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is
incompatible with Article 5(4) of the ECHR in so far as:
(i) it is not attended by provision for the reference
to a court of the case of an incompetent patient
detained under section 2 in circumstances where a
patient has a right to make application to the
MHRT but the incompetent patient is incapable
of exercising that right; and
(ii) it is not attended by a right for a patient to
refer his case to a court when his detention is
extended by the operation of section 29(4).
The House of Lords
overturned the declaration.
20 Oct 2005
[2005] UKHL 60
Re MB
(Sullivan J)
[2006] EWHC 1000 (Admin)
The case concerned the Secretary of State’s
decision to make a non-derogating control order
under s2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act
2005 against MB, who he believed intended to
travel to Iraq to fight against coalition forces
12 Apr
2006
The procedure provided by the 2005 Act for
supervision by the court of non-derogating
control orders was held incompatible with MB’s
right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR
(right to a fair trial).
The Court of Appeal overturned
the declaration. The judgment is
subject to an appeal to the House
of Lords but we understand this
does not relate to the decision to
overturn the declaration.
1 August 2006 [2006]
EWCA Civ 1140
This table has been prepared for information by lawyers in the Ministry of Justice. We have endeavoured to make it comprehensive, but if you are aware of any
omissions or errors please contact James Adutt at James.Adutt@justice.gsi.gov.uk Last updated: 30 May 2007
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
115
116
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
APPENDIX 7: COMPARISON OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND THE DEPARTMENT FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS; AND BREAKDOWN OF DUTIES OF THE
LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
Comparison of DCA and MoJ areas of responsibility
Former DCA
Ministry of Justice
Our responsibilities
Justice
We focus on driving up performance in
the justice system—across the criminal,
civil and family courts, and in the other
administrative courts and tribunals
including those dealing with asylum
appeals.
Our responsibilities include:
• Her Majesty’s Courts Service;
• major improvements in the efficiency
and performance of the courts;
• improving
the
enforcement
of
criminal penalties; and
• provision of an efficient asylum
appeals process.
Rights
We
focus
on
supporting
the
disadvantaged and delivery for the
public. This includes reforming legal aid
and legal services, and tackling the
compensation culture.
Our responsibilities include:
• the law and policy on human rights;
• information rights including freedom
of information and data protection;
and
• gender recognition.
Democracy
Our priority is to improve engagement
between the citizen and the state.
Our responsibilities include:
• Electoral reform and administration.
The core components of the new
Ministry of Justice are:
• the National Offender Management
Service:
administration
of
correctional services in England and
Wales through Her Majesty’s Prison
Service and the Probation Service,
under the umbrella of the National
Offender Management Service;
• Youth Justice and sponsorship of the
Youth Justice Board;
• sponsorship of the Parole Board, Her
Majesty’s Inspectorates of Prisons
and
Probation,
Independent
Monitoring Boards and the Prison
and Probation Ombudsmen;
• criminal, civil, family and administrative
law: criminal law and sentencing policy,
including sponsorship of the Sentencing
Guidelines Council and the Sentencing
Advisory Panel and the Law Commission;
• the Office for Criminal Justice
Reform: hosted by the Ministry of
Justice but working trilaterally with
the three CJS departments, the
Ministry of Justice, Home Office,
Attorney General’s Office;
• Her
Majesty’s
Courts
Service:
administration of the civil, family
and criminal courts in England and
Wales;
• the Tribunals Service: administration
of tribunals across the UK;
• Legal Aid and the wider Community
Legal Service through the Legal
Services Commission;
• support for the Judiciary: judicial
appointments via the newly created
Judicial Appointments Commission,
the Judicial Office and Judicial

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
117
Communications Office;
• the Privy Council Secretariat and
Office of the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council; and
• constitutional
affairs:
electoral
reform and democratic engagement,
civil and human rights, freedom of
information, management of the
UK’s constitutional arrangements
and relationships including with the
devolved administrations and the
Crown Dependencies.
Division of responsibilities between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary
of State for Justice
Lord Chancellor
Secretary of State for Justice
• Custody & exercise of the Great Seal*
• Judicial
appointments
and
all
matters related to the judiciary and
lay magistracy, including titles, pay,
pensions, conduct and discipline*
• Procedural rules, appointments to
rule committees/ advisory councils,
fees as applicable in Criminal Justice,
Civil Justice, Family Justice and
Administrative Justice*
• HM
Court
Services
(i.e.
administrative systems, staff, services
and
accommodation,
for
the
Supreme Court of England & Wales
(including the crown courts and
district probate registries), the county
courts and the magistrates’ courts)*
• The Tribunals Service
• The Land Registry
• The Northern Ireland Court Service*
• The Law Commission
• Public records
• The National Archives
• The Crown Dependencies
• Legal Aid
• National
Offender
Management
Service, including the prison and
probation services
• Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy
• Sponsorship of relevant inspectorates
and NDPBs, including the Prison
Service, Parole Board, Youth Justice
Board
• Devolution
• Data Protection
• Freedom of Information
• Human Rights
• Electoral Law
• Regulation of the Legal Professions
Source: Ministry of Justice
* These are Great Seal, judiciary-related or judicial appointment functions which
are entrenched in the Lord Chancellorship and cannot be transferred by order
under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.
Minutes of Evidence
TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
WEDNESDAY 3 MAY 2006
Present
Bledisloe, V
Holme of Cheltenham, L (Chairman)
Carter, L
O’Cathain, B
Elton, L
Peston, L
Hayman, B
Examination of Witnesses
Witness: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, a Member of the House, Lord Chief Justice, examined.
Q1 Chairman: Lord Phillips, welcome.
with the Lord Chancellor, are negotiations between
the judiciary and the Executive and clearly seen to
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Thank you very
much. Good afternoon.
be so.
Q2 Chairman: It is very good to see you here and we
Q4 Chairman: So it is more of a negotiating
are grateful that you have found the time for this. I
relationship now.
know what a busy time it must be for you. I should
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It is more of a
say that the proceedings are being televised.
negotiating relationship.
Therefore, if you would not mind, just for the
purposes
of
the
camera,
formally
identifying
Q5 Chairman: What is the significance of the
yourself.
concordat within that? Various views have been
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes. I am Lord
expressed
about
its
constitutional
status
and
Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice.
significance.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think it is
Q3 Chairman:PerhapsIcouldopenthebatting with
probably a unique constitutional document. It was
one or two of the larger constitutional questions
the basis, of course, for the Act. The Act was based
whichobviouslyparticularlyinterestthisCommittee.
on what had been agreed in the concordat. There are
Looking back on the passage of the Constitutional
still some important elementsof theconcordat which
Reform Act, the Government
made quite a
are not expressly enacted in the statute. Perhaps the
considerable feature of the discussions that this
mostimportant,Ithink,isthatitisfortheLordChief
would lead to greater separation of powers between
Justice to decide how judges are deployed. I regard
the judiciary and those of the Executive and of
thisasoneofmymostvitalfunctions,decidingwhich
Parliament. I wondered if, in your perception, the
judges do what kind of work and where they do it.
relationship has now changed. Is it changing? Either
as a result of the Act or for other reasons, do you feel
Q6 Chairman: Do you see it as a mutable piece of
the relationship is changing?
paper or does it have an entrenched quality about it?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think the
LordPhillipsofWorthMatravers:Iwouldliketothink
relationship is changing and has been changing over
it has an entrenched quality about it. It has certainly
the last few years before the Act. The Act has really
been treated as if it were a constitutional document
severedwhatyoumightcalltheSiamesetripletsatthe
laying down the division of functions, now largely of
head, because the head of the judiciary, the
course overtaken by the Act but not exclusively, and
legislature and the Executive was one person and
where the Act does not cover something one needs to
now the judiciary can be seen to be freestanding.
go back to the concordat.
Perhapsthemostsignificantchangerelatestojudicial
appointments, in that there is now an independent
commission
to appoint
judges.
That is
very
Q7 Chairman:
The
Act
prescribes
the
Lord
Chancellor’s continuing role in relation to the rule of
significant. Also important is the fact that there is
now a freestanding body to deal with complaints
law.I thinkto lay membersof this Committee,which
includes me, it is quite puzzling to work out what the
against judges. Although, at the end of the day,
decisions have to be taken jointly by myself and the
ruleoflawmeansinpracticeoverandabovetheLord
Chancellor’srole,ifyoulike,aspoliticalguarantorof
Lord Chancellor, we, as judges, are now patently
freestanding. The division of powers is quite clear.
the independence of the judiciary. I think we all
understand that very well, but what, over and above
Now our negotiations with ministers, in particular
118
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
APPENDIX 8: EVIDENCE BY THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, 3 MAY 2006
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Q11 Chairman:Referringtotheindependenceofthe
the independence of the judiciary, do we mean by the
judiciary, you are now head of the judiciary, and, as
rule of law?
you said a moment or two ago, the process of the
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think the
appointment ofjudgesisnowentirelyindependent of
independence of the judiciary and the rule of law are
theGovernment.WhatwouldyouexpectoftheLord
very diYcult to sever. It is the role of the judiciary, in
Chancellor, in the event that you felt that the
practice, to uphold the rule of law, to apply the rule
independence of the judiciary, even with these two
of law, to enforce the rule of law, and to do that they
pillarsofindependenceinplace,werethrowninsome
have to be independent of outside influence. Insofar
way? What would then be the appropriate role of the
as it is the Lord Chancellor’s job to uphold the rule
Lord Chancellor?
oflaw,thismustbeverylargelyajobof ensuringthat
LordPhillipsofWorthMatravers:TheroleoftheLord
ourindependence isobserved.Equally, theremust be
Chancellor would be to stand up for the judiciary. If
occasions in government where a question may arise
their independence is threatened, one has to try to
as to whether the conduct that the Government is
envisagethenatureofthethreatbeforeonecanreally
contemplating is or is not in accordance with the rule
address what one would expect the Lord Chancellor
of law, and there, I would imagine, the Lord
to do. But, to take an example, imagine that a
Chancellor would have a role to play in his capacity
government minister were to launch a virulent
as a minister.
personal attack on an individual judge, not merely
saying that he did not accept the decision he had
reached but suggesting that the judge had not been
Q8 Chairman: So the independence of the judiciary
acting judicially, in that situation one would hope
is necessary for the rule of law but may not be
and expect that the Lord Chancellor would stand up
suYcient. There may be elements to what we
for thejudge, and,ifthenature oftheattackwerenot
understand by the rule of law which go beyond the
appropriate, that he would make that plain.
independence of the judiciary.
Lord Phillipsof Worth Matravers:Yes. Ithinktherole
of the judiciary is to uphold the rule of law.
Q12 Chairman: And stand up for them in Cabinet?
Ultimately societyisgovernedbylegalprinciplesand
In public?
it is for the judiciary, where those are in issue, to
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Wherever it was
resolve the issue and to ensure that the rule of law is
appropriate to do so, yes. Sometimes in public.
applied. The rule of law arises in relation to civil
Sometimes privately.
disputes between individuals. It arises as a matter of
public law, increasingly; it arises in the field of the
Q13 Baroness O’Cathain: From a practical point of
family;itarisesinthecriminalfield,whereitisthejob
view,howcouldthathappen?IftheLordChancellor,
of the judiciary to make sure that legal principles are
being
a
Cabinet
member,
in
charge
of
the
observed in criminal trials and criminal procedure.
Department of Constitutional AVairs, had one of his
colleagues, he would have to stand up for the judges
against one of his ministerial colleagues. Would that
Q9 Lord Carter: Could I ask a question on that last
actually happen?
point. If you take the example of the Human Rights
Lord Phillipsof Worth Matravers:Ithink it might well
Act, where the judiciary say there should be a
happen. I would not be surprised if it has happened
remedial order to put an act right in terms of the
in the past. One does not know what goes on in the
human rights and the Executive decided not to do
Cabinet.
that, would that be a breach of the rule of law?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Provided the
judiciary were correct—and of course Strasbourg is
Q14 Baroness O’Cathain: That is true.
the ultimate arbiter if one is dealing with human
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I would certainly
rights—it would be open to the Government to say,
hope, if an issue arose in Cabinet where the
“The court has ruled that this is contrary to the
independence of the judiciary were under threat, that
HumanRights Act. Notwithstandingthat,wedonot
the Lord Chancellor would stand up and say, “Hey,
intend to comply with the Human Rights Act on this
come on. You are crossing the line. You have got to
point” and that would be contrary to what I would
leave the judges to do their own job.”
call rule of law.
Baroness O’Cathain: The Lord Chancellor’s first
loyalty is to the judges rather than his Cabinet
colleagues.
Q10 Lord Carter: That is the end of the argument.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: That is the end of
the argument, yes, because Parliament is in that field
Q15 Chairman:Is thatquiteright? Ithink hisloyalty
is to what he is prescribed to do under the Act.
supreme.
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
119
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: They certainly
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
would. I would hope that if there was somebody
acting inappropriately, he might come under a two-
Q16 Baroness O’Cathain: And he is prescribed to do
pronged attack: one from me and one from the Lord
that, to stand up for the judges.
Chancellor.
LordPhillips of Worth Matravers:The Act now places
himunderastatutoryduty.Ithinkitwouldbeasorry
dayifwehadtorelyuponanActofParliamenttosay
Q25 Lord Elton: Forgive my ignorance, but I do not
that ministers must have regard to the independence
think the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State
ofthejudiciary,butifyouareenactingconstitutional
for Constitutional AVairs are necessarily the same
principles it is not a bad place to start.
person. In which case, with which person does the
defence of the judiciary belong and how do you
secure suYcient weight for his representation in
Q17 Chairman: Of course the Act, interestingly,
Cabinet?
does in that respect draw on the past and not simply
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: The weight that he
on
the
Act,
by
talking
about
the
existing
or she carries in Cabinet is not something we can
constitutional role of the Lord Chancellor.
control obviously. The title of the Lord Chancellor
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
has been preserved and is presently a title that the
Minister of State for Constitutional AVairs also has.
Q18 Chairman: In other words, the Act is supposed
I think we judges tend to refer to him as the Lord
to enshrine what we hope would always have
Chancellor. If one divorced the two, one would have
happened, which was that the Lord Chancellor
to see what function the Lord Chancellor was left
would be standing up for the rule of law, part of
with.
which, as you have explained, the indispensable
Lord Elton: Is it part of the concordat that they
precondition of which, is the independence of the
should be the same person? It does not seem to be in
judiciary.
the Act that they should be.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes. In my time in
thelaw, that,in myexperience, hasbeen thecase. We
Q26 Baroness O’Cathain: I thought it was.
have been well served by Lord Chancellors.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: The answer to that
is I am not sure. One has proceeded on this basis that
Q19 Lord Peston: I may have missed something you
this title would be that.
have said. You are now the head of the judiciary.
Chairman: I think the Act does prescribe they are the
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Of England and
same person
Wales—if I may just qualify it.
Baroness O’Cathain: Yes, I think it does.
Q20 Lord Peston: You did not say that you rejected
Q27 Chairman: But, since this is the Constitutional
the idea that it would be included in your job
Committee, perhaps we should find out! Could I ask
description to speak up for the judiciary.
one otherquestion beforeIpassthebat to oneortwo
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: No, I did not.
of my colleagues. As we have now arrived with the
concordat—just on the broad constitutional topic
Q21 Lord Peston: If a particular judge were being
still—how would you define the constitutional
attacked.
relationship between the Lord Chief Justice and the
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It certainly is my
Lord Chancellor? With the concordat, in the new
job.
dispensation, how would you define that?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I would say that we
Q22 Lord Peston: You would speak out.
have independent roles in trying to achieve the same
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
end, which is the application of the rule of law. I, as
head of the judiciary, am the leader of a very large
Q23 Lord Peston: But in the sort of terms: “I am not
team, which now includes magistrates: about 40,000
standing for this”?
people. Each individual judge is independent. I
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I do not think I
cannot tell my colleagues how they should decide
would commit myself necessarily to the terms or to
cases but I am their leader. I will do my best to
the way in which I would put this.
represent their views, their anxieties to ministers, in
particular to theLord Chancellor, and it isour job to
administer the law. It is the Lord Chancellor’s job to
Q24 Lord Peston: But it is certainly something that
you would feel is clearly within your remit, and your
provide the resources we need to do so and the
administrative staV that we need to do so. So the
judges—if I may call them your judges—would rely
on you to do that because they wish to show their
judiciary have to work in very close partnership with
the Executive, headed by the Lord Chancellor, in
independence and operate the rule of law.
120
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
circumstances should I avail myself of that right?
making sure that the two go together, so that we are
providing the judges and I am deploying the judges
What other avenues are there for communicating to
ministers matters of importance? How do we deal
but there are courts in the right places in which I can
deploy my judges. His role is essentially an executive
withparliamentary questions?If it isaparliamentary
question which relates to the judges’ field of activity,
role; my role is leading for the judges and
communicating the needs and wishes of the judges to
how shouldthat bedealt with? These are examplesof
quite complex areas that we are looking at the
theExecutive.Therearesomerolesinwhichwecome
together. We each have an input to make to the
moment.
Chairman: Perhaps we could come back to the
appointmentof thejudiciary, informingthejudiciary
of the judges we need, what types of judge we need,
parliamentary issue.
where we need them, and we each have a role to play
in relation to discipline, because, at the end of the
Q31 Viscount Bledisloe: It is absolutely plain from
day,wehavetodecidebetweenuswhataction,ifany,
what you have been saying that there remain a large
it is appropriate to take in relation to a complaint
number of areas where you and the Lord Chancellor
against a judge.
have to act in cooperation, either by both agreeing
something or by one of you consulting the other or
Q28 Chairman: In practice, you and the Lord
vice-versa. There are also areas in which you have to
Chancellor together are the hinge. On the one hand
negotiate on matters which aVect the way judges
the heavy door of the independent judiciary and on
work and are paid and so on and so forth. How do
the other hand the door jamb of the Government,
you feel about the possibility, which we are told is a
and the two of you, between you, are the hinge.
real possibility, that one day you might find yourself
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
dealingwithaLordChancellorwhowasnotalawyer
at all and had no experience of the law?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Experience in the
Q29 Chairman: I suppose, just as the concordat was
field isobviously avaluable attribute ofany minister.
arrived at eVectively by negotiation, it means that
It is diYcult to answer your question in the air. I do
within this notion of greater separation, greater
not view it as essential that the person with whom I
independence, there nevertheless is going to be,
am dealing should be a lawyer, but obviously the
practically, a fairly continuing negotiation between
person with whom I am dealing is going to have to
the two parties who represent the partnership you
have a grip of the particular area in which we are
have just described.
most concerned. If that person happens to come into
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes. It is very
oYce as a lawyer who already has experience in the
important that there should be and that there should
field, that is obviously going to be an advantage for
benegotiationorworkingtogetheratalllevels.Ifyou
him or her and probably an advantage for me. But
changethepoliceareas,youimmediatelyhavetoask:
one would hope that anyone who is appointed to this
What implications is this going to have for the
important oYce will have the qualities necessary to
administration of justice? How are the magistrates
do the job, whether or not they are qualified lawyers.
going to function? How is justice in the community
going to function within new areas? That is just an
example of somewhere where judges and the
Q32 Viscount Bledisloe: I would like to turn to a
Executive need to work together.
diVerent topic, which is the administrative burden
upon you under the new regime, which I understand,
Q30 Chairman: Do you expect that over time you
of course, has only been in force completely for a
will be developing processes? Clearly it is helpful if
short period.
you have good personal relationships, but, since that
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
cannot always be assumed, and sometimes there are
points of tension and disagreement, then it matters
Q33 Viscount Bledisloe: And how that conflicts with
that there are processes for dealing with that so it is
yourjudicialactivities.Firstofall,doyouenjoymore
not simply two people eye-balling each other across
judicial work or administrative work?
the table. Do you see the development of a precedent
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I enjoy judicial
and process operation?
work more than administrative work, but I have
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I do see the
found—somewhat to my surprise, I must confess—
development of processes. There are some areas
that I am quite enjoying the administrative side as
which we are considering very carefully at the
well.
moment. There are some very diYcult areas that one
has to deal with, such as: How does the Lord Chief
Justice express the views of the judges to ministers?
Q34 Chairman:Secondly,underthenewregime,can
you give us some idea about how many hours a week
With the statutory provision for my putting before
Parliament any matter of importance, in what
you see yourself working and how much of that you
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
121
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I would think it is
seebeingjudicialandhowmuchofthatyouseebeing
administrative?
essential. I do not think the Lord Chief Justice can
hope to keep the respect of the judges if they do not
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: That is a very fair
question. Over the last six months the administrative
see him sitting and deciding important cases. My
intention is to sit in all the jurisdictions, so that I will
burden has been particularly great because we have
been putting in place really the mini civil service that
sitoncriminalappeals,oncivilappealsandonfamily
appeals, and that is what I have set out to do. I have
weneedtohelpuswiththenewfunctions.Ihavebeen
working out to whom I should delegate various
been sitting today in crime. I am taking the Criminal
Division of the Court of Appeal next week to sit in
functions, which ones I shall and which ones I shall
not. The aim is that I should have suYcient time to
crime in Oxford. I have done that already in
Manchester. Apart from sitting, I have been going
continue to sit as a judge, which I think is absolutely
essential for the Chief Justice. My plan is, at the
around the country, meeting as many people as
possible and talking to them, just so that I get to
moment, since you ask, that I will keep the first and
the last week of term free completely. In the other
know them and listen to their concerns. I intend to
continue to take the Criminal Division of the Court
weeks, I would hope to sit. Ideally, I would like to sit
three days a week and deal with administration the
of Appeal out on circuit, but later on this term I shall
be sitting in civil for a few weeks.
other two, but, to date, one does find that there are
some things which you have to do in your sitting
week which impinge on the sitting.
Q38 Baroness
O’Cathain:
Section
5
of
the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 states that: “The
Chief Justice may lay before Parliament written
Q35 Viscount Bledisloe: That is, of course, going to
prevent you taking long cases.
representations on matters that appear to him to be
matters of importance relating to the judiciary, or
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think it would be
very diYcult for me to take a long case. But that, I
otherwise the administration of justice in that part of
the United Kingdom” How do you think you would
think, has been the case for some while as far as the
Lord Chief Justice is concerned.
exercise that power?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I have not finally
reached conclusions on this because it interrelates
Q36 Viscount Bledisloe: In my view, at least—and I
with a lot of other things. My current reaction is that
think most people would agree—it is vital to attract
this is a power to be exercised when I really want to
to your job top quality lawyers like Lord Bingham
draw attention to something that is really important,
and yourself. Do you see the administrative burden
not something to be done as a matter of routine. I see
being a real discouragement to getting successors of
this really as a substitute for what the Lord Chief
the same quality?
Justice has been able to do and has done in the past,
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I hope not. I do not
which is to address the House on a matter which is
think so. Obviously people diVer in their attitude to
considered suYciently important to justify that step.
their job. In the immediate future, certainly, anyone
As it happens, in theory that is still open to me, but it
who would be considering the job will be somebody
will not be in the future and I personally have not
who became a judge on the basis that what they
taken any part in the business of the House as a
wanted to do was judging, not administration.
matter of personal choice.
Having said that, quite a few of my colleagues now
are quite heavily engaged in administration. I think
most of them are enjoying this—some are enjoying it
Q39 Baroness O’Cathain: Would you envisage
making an annual report?
very much—so that I would hope that it would be
possible to find successors to my position of high
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It is something we
are considering, as to whether this would be
calibreaslawyersandjudgesbutwhononethelessare
not put oV by the administration.
appropriate. There are various alternatives. One
could maybe appear before a committee once a year
on a rather general discussion in relation to matters
Q37 Chairman: To follow Lord Bledisloe on this
of concern that I wanted to raise on behalf of the
question of the balance between administration and
judges. There are diVerent ways of doing this.
more narrowly defined judicial functions, you
mentioned a few moments ago the leadership of the
judiciary. Presumably, to some extent, that depends,
Q40 Lord Carter: If there were a written report—
this is to Parliament, not to the Executive—how
like leadership in other fields, on getting around and
building morale and indicating strategy and all the
would you expect Parliament to respond? You have
just
mentioned
an
appearance
before
this
things that leaders do, and being seen to do that. I
wondered, given that we are talking about judges,
Committee.Howdoyouseetherelationshipbetween
a formal right to lay a written representation before
how important acting as a judge is in demonstrating
leadership of the judiciary.
Parliament and a more informal invitation to appear
122
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It would, and I am
before the parliamentary select committees? There
was a recommendation in the Select Committee’s
not rejecting the idea that this might be a good way
of conveying these matters but would it necessarily
Report on the Constitutional Reform Bill that there
should be a joint select committee of Parliament to
have to be an annual appearance? Might there not be
a machinery, if there were a particular topic that I
relate to the judiciary. Would you see that as being
over-burdensome? What would that do, other than
thought it desirable to ventilate, whereby I could let
the appropriate committee know that if they were
you appearing before the Constitutional Committee
once a year, for example?
interested in hearing about this I would be happy to
discuss it?
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It would depend to
some extent on the terms of reference of the
committee. It is certainly an option that merits
Q44 Viscount Bledisloe: I am certainly not setting
consideration. In looking ahead at the relationship
annual as being a maximum but maybe setting it as
between the judiciary and Parliament, one needs to
being a minimum.
be
very
careful
that
one
is
preserving
the
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
independence of the judiciary. At the same time,
Parliament is certainly justified in expecting some
Q45 Lord
Peston:
Would
you
regard
it
as
way of communicating with the judiciary.
reasonable,
if
you
were
appearing
before
a
parliamentary committee, to answer questions about
the way the judiciary conduct themselves? I entirely
Q41 Lord Carter: Are there areas which you regard
acceptwhatyouhavesaidonspecificcases.Weknow
as oV limits in dialogue between senior members of
there would be no argument but that what you have
the judiciary and parliamentary select committees
said is right. May I give you two examples—and I do
such as this one?
not want you to comment on them, but they indicate
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: There certainly are.
what I have in mind. If we take the judge in the Da
Again, we are at the moment considering whether
Vinci Code case and also the recent Court Martial
thereissomeformofguidanceIhavetogivetoallthe
case,Idonotwantyoutocommentatallonwhatthe
judges as to how they should react if invited to come
decisionswerebut,inbothcases,asalaymanIwould
and appear before a committee of Parliament. It
put it to you that I was rather puzzled that that was
wouldnotbeappropriate—thisisquiteobvious—for
the way the judiciary thought it was okay to behave.
youtobeaskingmeormeansweringquestionsabout
As I have said, I do not want you to comment on
the case I have been sitting on this afternoon. There
them, but, if you were to see examples of the sort
are a number of other no-go areas where, if a judge
where you felt the judiciary were not acting with
should say, “I do not think it is really appropriate
appropriate gravitas and courtesy, would you feel it
that I should comment on that,” I would hope that
was your duty to do something about it? And, if
this would be respected. Essentially, you would not
asked by a parliamentary committee, “Did you take
expect judges to comment on political policy.
note of that?” to answer, “Yes, I did.”
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I would certainly
Q42 Lord Carter: Could we take the example of
regard it as appropriate for me to take action
today, where the Home Secretary has made a
personally with a judge who behaved in a way in
statement on this business of foreign nationals and
which I felt called for some form of admonition;
deportation. If a parliamentary select committee
falling short, obviously, of any kind of disciplinary
asked you for your views on the policy, would you
process. But it might equally be the case where I
regard that as oV-limit?
would think this is something that could be better
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes, I think I
done by the head of his division rather than by
would.Ifyouareaskingmewhattheimplicationsare
myself.If Ithencame beforethisCommittee andyou
for my judges, that would be a diVerent matter.
asked me what I thought about the way this judge
Lord Carter: Of course. Thank you.
had behaved, I think I would probably say I would
prefer not to comment on that.
Q43 Viscount Bledisloe: You have said, in my view
understandably, that you would only want to
Q46 Lord Elton: If I may take a little further what
you said about the interface between yourself and
exercise the section 5 power to lay representations in
acase about whichyoufeltverystrongly.Is it notthe
your successors in Parliament. At present we have in
this House a copious supply of very experienced
case that,if youdid have regular appearances, oncea
year, say, before committees such as this, that would
judicial brains. That is going to dry up unless it is
artificially remedied. That being so, do you think the
give you an opportunity to indicate topics on which
you were less than 100% happy but which in your
remedy should be the return of the Law Lords into
this House—judges of appeal or whatever? If not,
view were not so ghastly that you felt the need to lay
written representations.
does your contemplated annual meeting with a
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
123
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
inappropriate to comment on policy development;
committee or whatever constitute the only way in
which you can influence the development of
forexample,inthecaseweareconcernedaboutatthe
moment. But could I go back to the issue of the
legislation itself? What worries me is that we have a
lot of people at the moment who can hold our hands
responsibility of upholding the rule of law and
whether there is any circumstance where the division
when we laymen rush ahead to do something foolish
in a statute and we will be told how it went wrong in
seemed in a way, from what you have said earlier, to
be the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to
1948 or whatever. How is that loss going to be made
up through the system you have in mind?
uphold the rule of law in policy development and of
the judiciary to ensure it in adjudicating after the
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: The first thing I
would say is that there is going to be a jolly good
event on legislation.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
reservoir of legal brains. My retirement age is 75, but
for those who were appointed more recently they
have to retire at the age of 70. A lot of those still have
Q50 Baroness Hayman: But it is possible for
a lot to contribute and I would hope that reservoir
legislation or policy to be proposed that might be
willbe usedto replacethose availabletotheHouseat
considered togobeyond whatisnormally considered
the moment. So far as legislation is concerned, there
the rule of law? We had an example of the ouster
are ways in which judges can properly assist with
clause, but, equally, there would be Human Rights
legislation, as, for instance, by protesting that we
Act implications in certain of the policy proposals in
have much too much of it.
our discussion at the moment. Do you consider that
Viscount Bledisloe: Hear, hear.
there is a sort of temporal divide between your
responsibility and the Lord Chancellor’s on the rule
Q47 Lord Elton: I quite agree.
of law? Or might that be one of the situations in
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: We can perfectly
which the nuclear option came into play?
properly comment on the implications for the
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think the nuclear
running
of
the
judicial
system
of
proposed
option could come into play if something was
legislation. There is already a committee in existence,
proposed by way of legislation that was so contrary
the Rose Committee, named after Sir Christopher
to the rule of law that judges would feel: “We have
Rose, which does this in the criminal field.
got tostep inandmakeplainourobjectiontothis”—
rather the kind of situation that Lord Steyn was
Q48 Lord Elton: Do you see a relationship here
contemplating. You could reach a crunch situation,
between
the
formal
right
to
lay
written
where fundamental constitutional principles, such as
representations, which I think you have already said
judicial review, if it was proposed, should be
youregard as for grandoccasions only,and themore
abrogated wholesale, I can conceive that in a
informal invitation to appear before a parliamentary
situation like that the judiciary would want to make
committee. Is there another vehicle for the sort of
their voice heard.
concern I am asking you about.
Baroness Hayman: Thank you.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: So far as laying
Chairman: Let us press on. Lord Peston, you have a
things before Parliament, I feel I need a nuclear
question you want to ask.
option, so that when I adopt it everyone sits up and
says, “This must be important.” It is diYcult and
Q51 Lord Peston: I think you have largely answered
delicate for judges to be involved in the legislative
the question I had in mind, but, for the record, the
process. It would not be appropriate for a judge to
broad measure of the question that I am putting to
appear before a committee to discuss proposed
youiswhether, if wego,as Ithink we will,for greater
legislation because it would be very diYcult to keep
post-legislative scrutiny indue course, parliamentary
this within the proper boundary. The proper
inquiries will be looking much more precisely at
boundaryisreallysaying,“Ifyouaregoingtodothis,
judicial decisions. The example I have been asked to
you are going to double the number of appeals
draw to your attention, although I cannot say I fully
coming up to the Court of Appeal. We are going to
understand it myself, is the remarks the Joint
need another 10 judges to deal with it.” Or possibly:
Committee on Human Rights made about the
“If you are thinking of doing that, you want to give
judgments of the Appeal Court in the matter of
careful
consideration
to
the
following
legal
functions of a public nature. I cannot tell you of the
implications it will have.”
precise topic.
Chairman: The point of nuclear options is not to use
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think I
them but to threaten them, I believe!
understand .
Q49 Baroness Hayman: I could continue the
metaphor, but I think it may get very tangled. You
Q52 Lord Peston: The general question is one on
which I would like your view.
gave a very clear answer that it would be
124
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
the layman does not understand, which is how one
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It is perfectly
appropriate, obviously, for Parliament to consider
earns a living, because we are the only ones who
know what it really means. That is how lawyers earn
decisions being reached by judges and to express
perhaps
disappointment
that
the
judges
are
their living as well, I imagine.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: There are plenty of
interpreting the law in this way, and it is open to
Parliament, if judges are interpreting the law in this
lawyers who are not serving judges who could
perform that function, and they busily do in the
way,tochangethelaw.Ultimately, ofcourse,itisthe
House of Lords rather than the Court of Appeal that
universities
in
commenting
on
the
important
decisions and very often commenting adversely,
has the last say so far as important principles of law
are concerned. It has to get up to them, but, if
saying, “This does not make sense at all.”
Parliament is disappointed with the way in which
laws are being interpreted by the judiciary, of course
Q56 Lord Peston: Your view would be that in the
theyareentitledtosaysoandtoconsiderwhetherthe
case of the scrutiny committee we have to have our
law needs to be changed. What would become less
own lawyer.
satisfactory is if the thing becomes very personalised,
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes.
because the judges are actually doing their best to
apply the law objectively.
Q57 Lord Carter: If I could give you an example of
thesituationthatLordPestonreferredto.The report
Q53 Lord Peston: Assuming it was this Committee
oftheJointCommitteeonHumanRightswascritical
and assuming some of us had been involved in the
of the judgments of the Court of Appeal in which the
legislation andthoughtweknewwhatthelawwehad
term“publicauthority”wasgivenanarrowmeaning.
passed meant—and I do not push that too strongly,
TheDisabilityDiscriminationAct2005placedaduty
but thought we knew what we were doing—who
on public authorities to prevent discrimination
would we then call before us if we were scrutinising
against disabled people. That judgment presumably
the legislation?Would wecall you and say, “Canyou
wouldberelieduponbyapublicauthorityifitmoved
at least explain to us how your judges came to this
just outside of the narrow definition that had been
diVerent interpretation?” I take it you are not
given by the Court of Appeal. Will they have to go to
suggesting that we should call the judge in question.
the House of Lords to get that sorted out?
LordPhillipsofWorthMatravers:No.Norshouldyou
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: If the facts were
call me.
fairlyandsquarelywithinthedecisionoftheCourtof
Appeal, and you could say, “Applying this decision
of the Court of Appeal, this particular body would
Q54 Lord Peston: Then who would we ask?
not be considered to be a public authority and
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It ought to be clear
therefore notwithin thescopeof theAct,” Ithink the
from the judgments in question the process of reason
answer probably would be yes. This is judicial
that has led the judge or the judges to reach their
precedent. But the case in question did not go to the
conclusions. We have to give our reasons. We do our
House of Lords.
besttoexplainasclearlyaswecanwhatthosereasons
are and it would not be appropriate for those who
have given the judgment or, indeed, for me to go
Q58 LordElton:Anincreasingamountoflegislation
beyond that. I could possibly help with a bit of
has become justiceable as a result of European
identification of legal principles if there was
legislation and the Human Rights Act. How is that
puzzlement.
developing? How do you think it may aVect relations
between Parliament and the legislature in the
coming years?
Q55 Lord Peston: I am still a little bit lost. As you
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Parliament and the
probably realise, on a committee like this we get a
judiciary.
majority of people who are not lawyers but who are
Lord Elton: Parliament as the legislature and the
not stupid—if I may dare say that. Sometimes it is
judiciary.
impossible. Certainly I take a great interest. When I
read law reports, though I try, I cannot follow the
logic of what is being said at all. Happily I have
Q59 Baroness O’Cathain: And the Executive.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It is quite simple to
friends here andI say, “How in heaven’sname did he
ever get to that answer” and they try to explain it to
state the judges’ task, which is simply to apply the
law. If there are areas of the law where the United
me—and I cannot say that I am a very good pupil—
in a way that I can understand. I do not see how we,
Kingdom Parliament is no longer supreme, the court
has to face that fact, and if it reaches the conclusion
doing pre-legislative scrutiny, could do it without
some very senior legal advice as to how the logic
that an Act of Parliament is incompatible with
European legislation, it has to say so. So far as the
worked in that case. As you know, I am an
economist, and therearelots of unwritten thingsthat
Human Rights Act is concerned, it cannot say that
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
125

126
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: Yes. I do not think
see the purpose of the legislation. So I cannot simply
a judge should be asked to chair an inquiry with a
answer the question just like that. If it made the
political flavour. This is something that falls within
judges’ task easier, because there you have a
my own experience because I was invited to chair the
statutory statement of the purpose, then I think
BSE inquiry. That inquiry was, by its terms, an
judges would have no trouble with this at all and
inquiry
into
the
conduct
of
a
previous
would find it made their life easier. But it all depends
administration. When considering whether to accept
on how clearly this is done. If it were not done very
the invitation or not, I considered very carefully the
clearly, you might then find you were in conflict
object of the exercise: Am I satisfied this is a genuine
between what is said to be the purpose and what the
fact-finding inquiry or is it politically motivated? I
language of the Act seems to state, which could itself
satisfied myself that it was a genuine fact-finding
give rise to problems. It would involve consideration
inquiry and therefore I accepted the invitation to
of a new approach to statutory interpretation. A lot
chair it. But if I felt it was politically motivated, I
of statutes have a preamble which tells you a bit
would have declined.
about the purpose already.
Q69 Lord Elton: You told us right at the beginning
Q67 Lord Carter: I believe the purpose clauses were
that you are responsible for the deployment of the
quite common sometime ago and they have dropped
judges. Does that mean that any invitation to sit on a
out of favour. I have the feeling that one of the
public inquiry under the Act must be directed to you
reasons was that the public realised they were more
and not to an individual judge?
open to judicial review, if they had a purpose clause
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: It is a very nice
and it was not framed exactly correctly, as you have
question. It is strongly arguable that, as I am
said. Recently we had a Bill which much to my
responsible for the deployment of judges, my
surprise had a purpose clause: the Natural England
approval should be obtained before a judge is invited
and the Rural Communities Bill. As a former chief
to chair an inquiry. I would hope, in practice, that I
would be consulted if it was intended to invite one of
whip, I hated any idea of a purpose clause, because I
my judges to chair an inquiry. I would expect a judge
knew what would happen: it would be debated
who was given that invitation to ask me what I felt
endlessly at second reading and again we would have
about it, so it would be quite a good idea to ask me,
a second reading debate on every line of the purpose
first of all, what my views were about it. Ultimately,
clause, which is exactly what happened on the
it is for the judge himself or herself to decide whether
Natural England Bill. It has led me to believe that
to accept the invitation.
theycausemoretrouble than theyareworthbecause,
unless you get it absolutely right and you think of
Q70 Baroness O’Cathain: Would you discuss it with
every suitable way in which it could be interpreted,
the Lord Chancellor?
you could leave the argument open then for judicial
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I would expect the
review.
request for a judge to chair an inquiry to be made
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think I would
either by or through the Lord Chancellor and that I
agree with what you have said but the proof of the
would discuss it with him.
cake is in the eating. If it actually makes the judges’
job easier in interpreting the statute, fine, but it can
Q71 Chairman: You will recall that Lord Woolf
give rise to problems. Certainly, if you set out a
reportedduringtheConstitutionReformBillthatthe
purpose, it opens the door to arguments on judicial
Judges’ Council had expressed a view that it should
review that this Act was being used in a way which is
go beyond consultation to concurrence, that there
not consistent with the purpose for which it was
should actually be a sign-oV by both the Lord
passed.
Chancellor and you on behalf of the judiciary when
Chairman: Perhaps this is a discussion I should have
a judge was to be appointed as chairman of a public
with Lord Carter some other time, but it is argued
inquiry. What is your view on that?
that for the House at second reading to discuss what
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I think I would be
the purpose is is exactly what the House should be
happier with concurrence but at the end of the day I
doing, even if chief whips do not like it very much.
suspect it would not make any diVerence because I
Lord Carter: That is fine. Not the clause.
would be surprised if a judge would accept an
Chairman: Let us get on, because time, sadly, is
invitationtochairaninquiryifIwereunhappyabout
pressing.
the judge doing so.
Q68 Baroness O’Cathain: Are there types of public
Q72 Viscount Bledisloe: Where you have said, “no, I
inquiry which you think a judge should not be asked
do not think this is a suitable topic” and the Lord
Chancellor has said “nonetheless, I want the judge”,
to chair?
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
127
3 May 2006
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Q74 Chairman:Whatyouhavejustenunciatedisthe
are you happy that a judge could safely say, “I am
independence of judgeswhereastheissue isperceived
sorry, I am not doing it” without detriment to his
by many people to be the independence of the
own career prospect?
judiciary, not the abuse rather than use by the
LordPhillipsofWorthMatravers:Yes,Iam.TheLord
Government to take hot potatoes and carry them
Chancellor is no longer in a position to control the
around. The independence of a judge or the
career or prospects of the judge in question. If
independence of the judiciary may be principles
promotion is being considered it would be for the
somewhat in conflict or could potentially be in
Judicial Appointments Commission or the statutory
conflict.
machinery, depending on what area they are looking
LordPhillipsofWorthMatravers:Anindividualjudge
at, to decide whether the individual is or is not going
might decide to do something which would reflect
to find his career advanced.
adversely on the public’s view of the independence of
the judiciary.
Q73 Baroness O’Cathain: If the judge was asked to
Q75 Chairman: Lord Phillips, you have been
chair the inquiry and you did not think it was a very
extremely generous withyourtime and yourinsights,
good idea and he went ahead and did it, could he go
we are grateful. I have one final question. Would you
ahead and do it? Could you potentially say, “no, you
think it a good idea if we, as a Committee and if you
cannot do it”.
were willing to come along, were to do this from time
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I am not in a
to time? I know we would find it very useful.
positionasamatteroflawtoforbidajudgeaccepting
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers: I personally am
thatinvitation.Thisispartoftheindependenceofthe
very happy to accept an invitation from time to time
judiciary, that an individual judge, if he or she
as long as it is not too frequent.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
chooses to accept such an invitation, can do so.
128
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE, THE JUDICIARY AND PARLIAMENT
Minutes of Evidence
TAKEN BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY 22 NOVEMBER 2006
Present
Bledisloe, V
O’Cathain, B
Carter, L
Peston, L
Goodlad, L
Rowlands, L
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Smith of Clifton, L
(Chairman)
Windlesham, L
Morris of Aberavon, L
Woolf, L
Examination of Witnesses
Witness: Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton, a Member of the House, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of
State for Constitutional Affairs, examined.
Q1 Chairman: Lord Chancellor, may I welcome you
very warmly to the Committee. We always look
forwardtoyourappearancesbeforeus;thankyoufor
coming. I wonder if I might open the questions with
an issue that has been in front of the Committee this
morning. I have to say, as a Committee we were very
concerned by the response to our most recent report
on
Waging
War:
Parliament’s
Role
and
Responsibility. We were concerned for two reasons,
one is that the response was later than the guidelines
indicate. I think the normal indications for responses
come within two months; in fact this was five weeks
after that. You were kind enough to write to me
apologising for the tardiness. I think we had rather
hoped that, being late, it would be more substantial.
Wewereseriouslydisappointedthattheresponsewas
not just tardy but very cursory. The normal length of
government’s response to select committee reports
generallyruns intoten,fifteen, twenty pages;wewere
honoured with a one and a half page response to a
very carefully considered report in the course of
which we took a lot of evidence, some of it very
authoritative and distinguished, and I feel, on the
part of the witnesses (let alone this Committee who
spent quite a lot of time on deliberation and some
careinourconclusions)thatwemighthavehopedfor
a more substantial and thoughtful response from the
Government. I have jumped into this because it is
very much at the top of the Committee’s mind
although I would hope in a moment to give you a
chance to make a general opening statement. I
wanted to take this very topical issue first, if you do
not mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First of all, I apologise for
the delay. The reason for the delay was that there
were internal discussions within government as to
how best to respond, which seemed to me to be the
appropriate way to deal with it. I am very sorry that
you think the response was cursory and did not deal
adequately with the arguments; I apologise if that is
what you think. You can see from the response that
we gave that we did not go as far as the Committee
would like us to have gone in relation to the issues
that they raised. Both myself and the Attorney
General gave evidence to the Committee in which we
set out what the Government’s position was and
what the constitutional position was on waging war.
I think our response, to a large extent, drew on that
evidence and referred to that evidence and also
referred to what the Prime Minister had said,
basically saying that although the constitutional
position is that it is the executive that decides, in
practice the legislature will always be involved.
Length on its own does not have that much merit.
That was our position; we made it clear in the
evidence and we made it clear again in the report. I
am not sure that there is much more that we can do.
Q2 Chairman: The most compelling phrase is that
“the Government keeps its policies under review” so
the position taken by the Government is not fixed
and immutable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not fixed and
immutable but it does have a position.
Q3 Chairman: Thank you for that. I think these
issues will no doubt be raised in the debate on the
report in the House but it is good of you to restate
what your position is. Could I apologise for slightly
jumping the gun there and invite you to make your
opening statement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I was not going to make a
long opening statement, you will be relieved to hear.
Could I say how much I welcome coming every year
and I welcome the opportunity to come before the
House of Lords Constitution Committee for our
fourth annual discussion on the Constitution. There
is only one thing that I would like to deal with in my
2
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
opening statement and that is about the eVect of the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Some of its
provisions have only been in force since April 2006,
such as appointments and the appointment of the
Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary. Others,
such as the Supreme Court, have not yet been
introduced,butthenew structurefortheroleofLord
Chancellor is in place; he is no longer a judge or head
of the judiciary but he remains, however, a staunch
and statutory defender of judicial independence
within government. I believe the changes are an
improvement and bring clarity where previously
there wasambiguity. Myministerialcolleaguesarein
no doubt that I will defend the judges privately and,
where
necessary,
publicly
as
was
required
surrounding the Sweeney sentencing issues. In
private I will speak in Cabinet or privately to
ministers
where
necessary
to
defend
the
independence of the judiciary. I have never had any
diYculty in obtaining agreement. Have I been
hampered in defending the independence of the
judges within government by reason of the fact that I
am no longer a judge or head of the judiciary?
Emphatically not. The separation of roles has, I
believe,strengthenedtheLordChancellorintermsof
dealingwithindividualcolleaguesandpubliclywhere
the force of a main stream cabinet minister speaking
out is substantial. The separation of roles has been
equally eVective for the leadership of the judiciary.
Having a leader of the judges drawn from the
judiciary rather than a politician drives a sense of
ownership and momentum. It gives the judiciary
confidence that the pressure for change, if it comes
from the head of the judiciary, comes from the
profession and not from the politicians. Judges have
always sought to improve the core processes. In the
new arrangements they are keenly and eVectively
engaged in the partnerships which are required to
makejustice workbetter. Courtresources and judges
are the two things which help the courts work better;
clarity in our respective roles has made for better
working. These changes to the role of Lord
Chancellor
have
made,
I
believe,
substantial
improvements to the system.
Q4 Chairman: Thank you very much. That very
interesting and clear statement does prompt one
immediatequestionwhichisinterms—youmayhave
been told we are mounting a short inquiry on this in
this Committee—as to whether those issues of the
relationship between ministers and the judiciary
ought (and this wouldseem consistent with what you
have just said to us) to form part of the ministerial
code as well as being subject to the ad hoc defence
within government of yourself and others.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The ministerial code starts
with the proposition that the ministerial code has to
be read in the context that ministers have to comply
with the law. Part of the law is to do nothing to
undermine the independence of the judiciary. You
can undermine the independence of the judiciary as a
government minister if you make inappropriate
remarks about judges so to some extent it is already
in the ministerial code. Would it be helped by there
being an explicit reference to not undermining the
independence of the judiciary? (Remember the eVect
of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005; there was a
specific duty on every single minister not to
undermine the independence of the judiciary.) It
mightdo,butIdonotthinkitisaparticularlycritical
issue in determining the relationship between the
judges and the ministers.
Q5 Chairman: So you are open to that as a
possibility.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am open to that as a
suggestion but I do not think it is that critical.
Q6 Chairman: Moving on to other questions, the
first is a process question. As you know we have
always called for bills that have constitutional
implications to be published in draft and we were
pleased that the Draft Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Bill was put out for pre-legislative
scrutiny, but very disappointed that the period of
consultation coincided almost exactly with the
summer recess which clearly reduces the ability of
Parliament and committees like this to do anything
about it. Why did that happen?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Because I was very keen
thatwepublishedadraftcopyofthebill.Thebillwas
ready in July. It was important to publish a draft
copy of the bill so that it would have been available
for pre-legislative scrutiny before it was introduced
into Parliament. I think it has already had its first
reading. We have had a period from July to
November in which it has been available publicly. I
was extremely keen that a parliamentary committee
shouldtakeitupforpre-legislativescrutinyandnone
would. I am as deeply regretful as you are that it was
not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, but could I
throw the ball straight back into your court and say,
“Find a committee that will do it and I would
welcome it” but it is too late now unfortunately.
Q7 Chairman: This is a slight catch 22 you are
throwing us.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I do not think it is a
catch 22. We were keen for it to have pre-legislative
scrutiny; the bill has been available for quite some
time. There were other bills thatmy department were
doing that for reasonsI cannot adequately explain to
you people found more interesting to look at. For
example,
the
Constitutional
AVairs
Select
Committee looked at the Coroners Bill which is now
not in the Queen’s speech; for example, a joint
3
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
committee of both Houses was set up to look at the
Legal Services Bill. It is a parliamentary matter and
not an executive matter that they did not decide to
take up the Tribunals Bill and it may be because the
people who make these decisions decided they were
not interested enough in the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Bill, but it is certainly not through any
want of enthusiasm on our part for there to be pre-
legislative scrutiny.
Q8 Chairman: Maybe we can do a deal. If you can
help on timing we might be able to help on scrutiny.
CanImovefromthoseprocessesintoaslightlyloftier
sphere of discussion which is reverting to this
question of the meaning of “the rule of law”of which
you are the defender within government? Ofcourse it
appears in section one of the Constitutional Reform
Act. When we met last time I think your definition—
although you said a lot of other very interesting
things—was that Parliament determines what the
rule of law is. When we met the Lord Chief Justice in
thesummerwegotarathermoreexpansivedefinition
from him. He said, for instance, that if a court ruled
that something was contrary to the Human Rights
ActandtheGovernmentthenrefusedtocomplywith
that ruling, even if the principle of parliamentary
supremacymeantthatthatwastheend ofthe debate,
it nevertheless would be contrary to the rule of law.
Do you agree with the Lord Chief Justice’s analysis
of that, that something could be contrary to the rule
of law and yet parliamentary supremacy could be
invoked to end the matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The rule of law includes
both national and international law as far as I am
concerned, therefore if we remained in breach of the
European Convention then we would be in breach of
international law. I think the rule of law also goes
beyondissues such asspecific black letterlaw. Ithink
there are certain constitutional principles which if
Parliamentsoughtto oVend wouldbecontraryto the
rule of law as well. To take an extreme example
simplytodemonstratethepoint,ifParliamentsought
to abolish all elections that would be so contrary to
our constitutional principles that that would seem to
me to be contrary to the rule of law. The rule of law
goes beyond specific black letter law; it includes
international law and it includes, in my view, settled
constitutional principles. I think there might be a
debate as to precisely what are settled constitutional
principles but it goes beyond, as it were, black letter
law.
Q9 Chairman:
To
help
us
think
what
the
constitutional principles might be, could you give an
example less—hopefully—far
fetched
than the
abolition of elections?
Lord Falconerof Thoroton: I would be quite unkeento
do so. Something that substantially undermined our
democracy would be what I have in mind. I do not
want to go much further than that.
Q10 Chairman: It is an important issue because
whetheryoutakeAVDiceysayingthattherearetwo
pillars, one is the rule of the law and the other is
parliamentary sovereignty or whether you take the
growing impact—as you have referred to—of
international law, there clearly is an area of proper
debate which is: what does the rule of law mean over
and
above
parliamentary
sovereignty?
I
can
understand your reluctance to be drawn into an
adumbration of what those principles are or
examples of them, but would you agree that it is a
proper
area
of
understanding
now
that
the
Government
itself
has
engineered
a
greater
separationofpowersandthisisanimportantareafor
democratic understanding?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree entirely with that.
Iamnotsurethatmuchis achievedatthe momentby
trying to draw up a list of things where it might be
that even though there was not an oVence to black
letter law, nevertheless parliamentary sovereignty
would not apply. What you are doing is constantly
trying to define unnecessarily the constitution in an
area where there is no conflict at the moment. There
is no conflict between parliamentary sovereignty and
the rule of law that I believe to be imminent at the
moment. It does not necessarily assist public
understanding by trying to define where the conflict
might be when no such conflict is imminent.
However, I think it is a very important area to look
at generally.
Q11 Chairman: Constitutions are supposed to
anticipate and find ways of dealing with such
conflicts and therefore for this Committee it is an
important issue and I suspect there is growing
interest outside.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The reason I am not keen
to be drawn into this particular area is because there
hasbeenadebateamongstlegalacademicsastowhat
are the sorts of issues where the courts could, as it
were,strikedownparticularbitsoflaw.Therewasan
issue about whether or not a clause that ousted the
court’s jurisdiction in certain areas would be
something thatthe courtscould strikedown. I havea
strong view in relation to that; there is no issue about
it at the moment because the issues have always been
avoided and for 150 years there has been this
potential conflict between the rule of law on the one
handandparliamentarysovereigntyontheotherand
we have managed to get through it without ever
bringing it to a point.
4
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Q12 Chairman: This is a particularly pointed
question for you as Lord Chancellor because it is
possible that it is you who would have to say to
colleagues in the Cabinet and in Government, “It
may well be that Parliament has decided this but I
believe this is contrary to the rule of law”.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In relation to the Human
Rights issue, the problem does not arise starkly
because it would be a breach of international law not
tocomply.IfwewerenotcommittedtotheEuropean
conventionandthere wasabreachof thetermsofthe
Human Rights Act which Parliament decided not to
change,thatiswherethediYcultywouldarise.Atthe
momentIdonotthinkitisaparticularlydiYculty.In
any event, another incredibly good example, I think,
is where we have a constitution which depends upon
cooperationandthatcooperationisalwaysprovided.
Forexample,thecourtshavedeclaredonIthinknine
occasions provisions of primary legislation as being
incompatible with the Human Rights Act. It is clear
thatit is amatter forParliament to decide whetheror
not they correct the incompatibility and the
Government has always promoted legislation to
correct the incompatibility. So cooperation works.
Q13 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Could I ask you,
Lord Chancellor, in view of the fact that you occupy
two oYces—Lord Chancellor and you also call
yourself Secretary of State for Constitutional
AVairs—whatrolespreciselydoyoudoundereachof
these hats? We noticed in the opening of Parliament
thatyouwerethereinyourrobes,performingtherole
of Lord Chancellor. On the opening of the new
sessionofthe courtsyou werethere in theAbbey,not
in robes, and marched up together with the Lord
Chief Justice. If the future Secretary of State for
Constitutional AVairs were in the Commons, what
repercussions would there be on what has happened
so far?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have a list of what are
formally the Lord Chancellor’s responsibilities and
what are formally the Secretary of State for
Constitutional AVairs’ responsibility. Can I pass
those round subsequently rather than go through the
list? Broadly, what I do under the hat of Lord
Chancellor arethose thingsthattendtobeconnected
withthecourtslikejudicialappointments,allmatters
related to the judiciary, procedural rules relating to
what the courts do, the running of the Court Service
in England and Wales, the running of the Court
Service in Northern Ireland. What the Secretary of
State for Constitutional AVairs does historically is
look
at
things
that
have
come
from
other
departments:
devolution,
human
rights,
data
protection, electoral law, that sort of issue. That is
where the split is. As you know at the State Opening
of Parliament the person handing over the speech is
Her Majesty’s Government and not either the
Speaker of the House of the Lords or the head of the
judiciary.
The
Lord
Chancellor
has
always
traditionally dressed up in the way that he has; those
robes are not necessarily judicial robes (although
judges wear similar robes) and you can see the
Speaker of the House of Lords wearing quite similar
robestome.IthoughtweshouldnotchangetheState
Opening of Parliament and if I am doing it as a
government minister—the Lord Chancellor has been
doing it as a government minister for however many
hundredsofyearsthatceremonyhasbeengoingon—
I could see absolutely no reason to change it because
there is no diVerent symbolism in relation to it. In
relation to the opening of the legal year the Lord
Chancellor used to lead the procession as the head of
the judiciary. Changing my clothes there is intended
to indicate that I am no longer a judge or head of the
judiciary. That is why the changes were made. The
fundamental change in the role is that it is no longer
a judge or head of the judiciary.
Q14 Lord Morris of Aberavon: What happens if the
Secretary of State is in the Commons?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If he is not the Lord
Chancellor he cannot dress up in the finery you saw
me wearing the day before yesterday (or whatever
day it was). It is a matter for the House authorities
and the Government to decide who is going to hand
over the speech to Her Majesty. It has to be
somebody who is a member of the Government. The
Speaker cannot do it. These are questions not to ask
me but to ask, as it were, the great constitutional
ceremonialists I suspect. From the point of view of
the ceremony I was very keen that it should look the
same. It is the most impressive looking event and the
symbolism isnot changedby thechangein therole of
Lord Chancellor. Indeed, I was keen to walk
backwards but I was told I could not because all the
other people now walk forwards and I would look
like a very crazed Lord Chancellor on that basis.
Q15 Lord Carter: I have a question on the previous
question. On the process of the discussions within
government on the rule of law, independence of
judiciary, my hunch—perhaps you could confirm
it—is that all these discussions take place outside the
cabinet room; they are done within government.
There is a phrase meaning “discuss it with
colleagues” which you have used yourself and it was
also used by your predecessor, Lord Irvine. The
number of times a question will come to the cabinet
table I would think would be very, very rare. My
question is this, I believe the Attorney General now
attends the Cabinet and is able to speak.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
5
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Q16 Lord
Carter:
Perhaps
this
is
entirely
hypothetical, butif aquestion needed to be discussed
in the Cabinet you would deal with it in your role as
Lord Chancellor but would the Attorney General, as
themain legaladviserto theGovernment, sitquietly?
It would be rather odd if he did.
Lord Falconerof Thoroton: The Attorney General and
not the Lord Chancellor is the prime adviser to the
Government on a legal issue. If there is a legal
question that is relevant for cabinet discussion it is
notthe LordChancellor whogives legaladvice to the
Government, it is the Attorney General. It is the
AttorneyGeneral’sviewthatisdecisive,nottheLord
Chancellor’s. Indeed, never in our government—but
if you look back in quite recent history, you will see
lots of diYculties between the Lord Chancellor and
the Attorney General if the Lord Chancellor has
sought
to
give
advice.
It
has
always
been
constitutionallyclearthattheAttorneyGeneralisthe
decisive voice on legal advice.
Q17 Chairman: That happened in Suez.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes and in Suez the then
Attorney General, Reginald Manningham-Buller,
was not consulted at all on whether or not it was
lawful to go to war but the then Lord Chancellor—I
think it was Lord Kilmuir—gave private advice to
the prime minister and there has been a series of
articles subsequently in which the exclusion of the
attorney from that advice both gave rise to outrage
and established the principle for today. Recently,
very interestingly, the National Archive published
correspondence between Lord Hailsham, Mr Heath
and Sir Peter Rawlinson in which (and this is all
public) Sir Peter Rawlinson, the Attorney General
complains bitterly that every time he gave advice to
the Cabinet—because the Attorney General has
frequently gone to the Cabinet in the past—Lord
Hailsham would tend to say that that is wrong and
give reasons. He writes to say that this must stop and
eventually the publicly disclosed documents reveal
that Mr Heath, the Prime Minister, spoke to all of
them and the problem was resolved (but it does not
say how). There was no doubt of what the
constitutional position was.
Q18 Lord Carter: I understand the point about the
legal advicebut whatI meant wasthat if the question
arose at the cabinet table and somebody—I would
think it would be the Lord Chancellor—would say,
“I have to advise colleagues here that there is a
problem with the rule of law”. That would be your
role. My question really was, does the Attorney
General then give legal advice on your view?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: He will not give legal
adviceonmyviewbutalargepartoftheruleoflawis
complying with black letter law so you have to know
what the law is. The only areas it seems to me where
diYcult questions about the rule of law will arise is
where you are talkingabout constitutional principles
beyond black letter law. If the attorney says to the
government that this is against the law then you do
not need the Lord Chancellor to say that it is against
the rule of law because it is already clear that it is
against the law. It is the much deeper, grey areas
where the Lord Chancellor may have a role.
Q19 Lord Goodlad: Lord Chancellor, in the Magna
Carta lecture which you gave in Sydney on 13
September on the Role of Judges in the Modern
Democracy, you said: “Whilst the role of Lord
Chancellor has changed, the oYce, rightly, has been
preserved.” That surprised many people because you
pressed for the abolition of the oYce of Lord
Chancellor during the passage of the Constitutional
Reform Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Not for long.
Q20 Lord Goodlad: Could you tell the Committee
what brought about the change of mind?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It was perfectly obvious
that in being a defender of the independence of the
judiciary and the rule of law within government you
are greatly assisted by holding a great historical
oYce. In those circumstances, whilst I strongly
believed and believe that the role of the Lord
Chancellor should change, in particular no longer
being the head of the judiciary, I think there is no
benefit whatsoever in abolishing the oYce if one of
the things the oYce has to do is to defend the judges
within government.
Q21 Lord Goodlad: But you thought diVerently
before.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I did; I was wrong but I
made that clear throughout. I regret being wrong. I
should make clear that the Magna Carta lecture was
not the first occasion I had admitted my profound
error;IhadadmittedmyprofounderrortotheHouse
of Lords on many, many occasions. If you think I
have not eaten enough humble pie, I am more than
happy to do so again.
Q22 Chairman:Doyouenvisageaslikelyorpossible
that a prime minister might want to de-couple the
oYcesofSecretaryofStateforConstitutionalAVairs
and Lord Chancellor?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not know; I do not
think so. Unless you are doing both lists of things
that I have referred to, whilst there is more than
enough to do as Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of
State for Constitutional AVairs, if all he or she was
doing
was
data
protection
and
freedom
of
information, there is not a job there it seems to me.
Equally, I think putting the Lord Chancellor’s role
together with freedom of information, human rights,
6
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
electoral law, that sounds a very, very appropriate
mix.
Q23 Baroness O’Cathain: Lord Chancellor, how
many civil servants do you have in DCA?
LordFalconerofThoroton:Iamresponsiblefor22,000
over all. That is the Court Service. There is a very,
very, very full time job running the Court Service,
running the Tribunal Service, running Legal Aid and
those issues which probably employ 80 or 90 per cent
of the oYcialsfor whom Iam responsible. If yousaid
that all that the person was responsible for was, say,
freedom of information—
Q24 Baroness O’Cathain: I did not say that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not quite sure what
the underlying—
Q25 Baroness O’Cathain: What you said was that if
you did not have the job of Lord Chancellor there
really would not be a job.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You are seeking to draw
from that, and there you were trying to abolish the
Lord Chancellor’s role. Is that the pay-oV line?
Q26 Baroness O’Cathain: You are now saying that
theyhavetobecombined;atleastthatiswhatyouare
implying.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Q27 Baroness O’Cathain: If they were not combined
there would not be a role for another person; there
would not be two diVerent heads, so to speak, one as
Lord Chancellor and one as DCA.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is correct.
Q28 Baroness O’Cathain: I am just finding that
ratherstrangeifthereissuchabigjob.Firstofallyou
say there is not a job but in fact there is a big job.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The original proposal was
that the Secretary of State for Constitutional AVairs
would do both the jobs in the Lord Chancellor’s list
and the jobs in the Secretary of State for
Constitutional AVairs’ list. What then happened was
that the role of Lord Chancellor was preserved and
certain jobs were basically tied to the oYce of Lord
Chancellor. I still have two titles and in my view
rightly so. There is still a very, very big job to do. If,
however, you separated out those things which I do
under my heading of Secretary of State for
Constitutional AVairs there is not very much in
those.
Q29 Chairman:
Your advice
to future prime
ministers would be to not separate the two roles.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It would be.
Q30 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Could I ask you
about the duty to defend the judiciary and the
diVerent obligations and the diVerent people: there is
the Lord Chief Justice, yourself, all ministers and all
worded slightly diVerently. Does it matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It does, I think. I think the
eVect of the Constitutional Reform Act is that I have
got an obligation to speak out both privately and, if
necessary, publiclyto defendthe independenceof the
judges, in particular from attack from within
government. I think the eVect of the Constitutional
Reform Act 2005 means that I have much, much
greater licence than any other ministers to speak
publicly on that issue.
Q31 ViscountBledisloe:Earlieryousaidthatyoudid
notseeanyneedtoincludeanythingintheministerial
code about what ministers should say about judges,
but there have been things which surely you would
accept were the wrong side of the line of personal
attack and would it not be much better if those were
speltoutasthingsthatministersshouldnotdorather
than merely them knowing that they have a duty to
uphold the independence of the judiciary?
LordFalconerofThoroton: Iftheywerethe wrongside
of the line then they were contrary to the law so there
would already be a breach of the ministerial code
because there is a specific legal duty in the
Constitutional Reform Act. I accept what you say,
that from time to time ministers do go too far. That
is
not
a
problem
just
with
this
particular
Government; ithas happened since there were judges
and ministers. I do not think the problem is whether
it is in the ministerial code or not; I think the line is
quite diYcult to draw and I think there are inevitable
tensionsintherelationshipbetweentheexecutiveand
the judiciary. I do not think the position would be
materially changed, as I said in answer to Lord
Holme’s questions. I do not think it would make
muchdiVerence.Idonotthink,forexample,itwould
make it easier to resolve precisely where the line is.
Q32 Viscount Bledisloe: Are these conflicts between
government and judges partly because, on the really
critical issues like what is contrary to the Human
Rights Act, it always seems to be decided on
argument and impression? Would it not be better if
evidence was called when somebody said, “This is
going to have a very serious eVect on so and so” and
it was all done much more with evidence so that the
judge could say, “Well, I am founding my view on
what was said by X or Y”.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think the courts would
say that they do decide the cases on evidence rather
than on impression. For example, in relation to the
Belmarsh case (the detainees after the 2001 Act) an
important issue was the extent to which terrorism
might come from home as opposed to abroad
7
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
because the issue the judges were dealing with was
whether there was a discriminatory eVect in only
being able to imprison people that you can also
deport who would naturally be foreign. Certainly in
many of the judgments the approach that was taken
in the House of Lords Appellate Committee was:
what is the evidence on foreign based terrorism as
opposed to national terrorism? So it was decided on
the evidence. I am not quite sure what point you are
getting at. There is evidence of the basic facts; a legal
conclusionhastobereachedonthat.Byandlargethe
courtshavebeenusingevidenceratherthanassertion
or anything else.
Q33 Lord Morris of Aberavon: My understanding,
Lord Chancellor, on your answer that the distinction
between a ministerial duty for all ministers and your
own is that yours is a bigger and weightier
responsibility.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Q34 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Does that apply to
the junior ministers in your department? On the
Sweeney case which you are familiar with the
judgment was handed down on the 12th, there was
complete silence governmentally on the 13thand the
14th andI think on the 15thJune yousaid something
and then on the 16th your junior minister said
something which she had to completely withdraw.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The duty is upon me and
not upon my junior ministers. I would expect every
oneofmyjuniorministerstoentirelyagreewithwhat
I say and say publicly what I say and if they do not
then obviously, as happened on that particular
occasion, they will have to accept that they accept
what I say or something happens.
Q35 Lord Morris of Aberavon: An exchange of
letters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I take the view that Vera
Baird is an extremely good contributor to the
Government. There appeared, on the face of it, to be
adisagreement;sheacceptedsheshouldnothavesaid
it and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the
matter.
Q36 Lord
Morris
of
Aberavon:
It
was
just
unfortunate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, it was, but it is a
matter that is over now.
Q37 Lord Rowlands: Could I refer back to your
Magna Carta lecture at Sydney where you posed the
question: “Where is the legitimacy for courts to
challenge and indeed strike down the acts of the
executive where it is plain those acts would have
majority support amongst the electorate?” How far
do you now expect judges to read opinion polls and
get an impression of what public opinion is about?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In my lecture I was posing
the question in the context of the Human Rights Act
which, for example, gives judges the power to make
decisions that have an impact on, for example, the
fight against terrorism. I answered the question by
saying that if we are a society that lives by the rule of
law there is no alternative but for judges who cannot
be elected, who cannot be accountable to people
making those decisions. That is the conclusion I
reached in the Magna Carta lecture which I am sure
is the right one. If judges were to be elected or had to
satisfy the public in a popular sense then we might as
well not have judges.
Q38 Lord Rowlands: Would you suggest in that
question that judges ought to take a look at public
opinion and the way it was moving in making his or
her decisions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am saying that they
should not take account of public opinion but I
referred earlier in the lecture to a remark made by
Lord Devlin who, when talking about sentencing
(which is very much a matter bound up with public
opinion)askedhowoneshouldapproachsentencing?
Should the judge become, as it were, an expert
criminal
penologist
or
should
he
approach
sentencing as he would regard the reasonable man
would approach it? I strongly support Lord Devlin’s
approach which is that he should approach it like a
reasonable man. What that means, it seems to me, is
that you do not necessarily do the popular thing but
you should do something that the public can
understand and you can defend.
Q39 LordRowlands:Letmeremindyouofthequote
because it was put in a kind of rhetorical question:
“Where is the legitimacy for courts to challenge and
indeed strike down the acts of the executive where it
is plain those acts would have majority support
amongst the electorate?” If the public opinion is
heavily in favour of locking everybody up in certain
circumstances judges should go along with it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The answer I give is that
you cannot, as a judge, decide things on the basis of
popularity. One of the things judges have got to do is
defend unpopular people because the law says even
though everybody hates you, even though everybody
thinks you have done wrong, your legal rights are
this.In askingthequestion:whatisthelegitimacyfor
it? There is a legitimacy you can have in our society
or in part of our constitutional arrangements which
comes from somewhere other than democratic
election. As far as the judges are concerned the
legitimacy comes from the fact that our society, as
Lord Holme said at the outset, is based in part on
democratic election of the executive and legislature
8
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
and in part on the idea that in the rule of law
everybody is equal before the courts. The only way
you get to that proposition is having independent
judges, so that is their legitimacy.
Q40 Lord Rowlands: You imply a little later that
there had been a significant change. In the seventies,
for example, the legislative response to the terrorists
outrages were exclusively a matter for the UK
Parliament; post 2001 it is a dual responsibility. You
went on to say that judges have to make the law and
answer a policy question, but at the same time you
are trying to keep them out of politics. Is that going
to be a rather impossible balancing act?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have made a decision
as a society that we want judges more involved in
those issues in determining, for example, the limits of
lawfulness in relation to our response to terrorism.
The example you are referring to which I gave in the
speech was that immediately after the Birmingham
bombings Parliament passed a variety of anti-terror
legislation and there was no question that the judges
would question whether they thought the legislation
was right or wrong, they simply enforced the
legislation. Now, at a time when I think people do
want more of a sense of individual rights, the judges
do have a role in determining the compatibility or
otherwise of the human rights legislation. However,
their legitimacy does not come from democratic
election; their legitimacy comes from a sense that
outer limits of lawfulness have to be set.
Q41 Lord Smith of Clifton: Lord Chancellor, how
would you describe the constitutional status of the
concordat you agreed with Lord Woolf in January
2004 on the Lord Chancellor’s judiciary-related
functions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think it is a document of
constitutional significance and I am not just saying
that because Lord Woolf is on the Committee. It
seems to me to be a document of constitutional
significance because, although much of it was then
enacted in the Constitutional Reform Act, it sets out
the basic principles on which the judges and the
executivewillrelatetoeachotherinthefuture.Ihave
never known any piece of legislation to be utterly
comprehensive; there are bound to be issues that
come up in the future where it is the principle that
matters rather than precise detailed legislation and I
believe the concordat will be important for that.
Q42 Lord Smith of Clifton: Thank you for that
answer because it covers my supplementary, does it
stillhaveacontinuingpracticalimportance.Iwillask
instead, do you think it provides a precedent—as
indeed
Baroness
Kennedy’s
Power
Inquiry
suggested—for
resolving
demarcations
between
diVerent levels of government (local government and
central government and so on)? Do you think it
provides that this notion of a concordat will be
prayed in aid as a precedent?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think it could do because
I very much welcomed it and thought it was a very
good thing to have done, but the nature of the
concordat that the executive and the judiciary struck
on that occasion was between the executive (which,
however it may appear, is a unified and coherent
body) and the judges (who, in fact, have always had
strong leadership) and therefore it was possible for
two people to sign a document and there would be a
sense that they brought with them the groups they
were representing. It would be a very good idea for
there to be a concordat between central and local
government. Obviously central government would
haveonevoicebuttowhatextentwoulditbepossible
for, as it were, the president of the LGA to say, “I
speak on behalf of Liverpool and Hertfordshire in
makingthisarrangement”.Ithinkitisaprecedentwe
need to look at and see whether it can apply in other
areas. How diYcult would it be to apply to other
areas? I suspect it would be quite diYcult.
Q43 Lord Woolf: I would like to ask you whether
you feel it is going to have a continuing role in the
relationship day to day between the judiciary and the
executive.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think that it will. Just by
way of example, very frequently I see documents
which will either go to the executive or go to the
judges, in terms of documents from one judge to
another or from one judge to a group of judges or
from me to other departments, and they will very
frequently refer to a paragraph in the concordat
sayingthatiswhathasbeenagreedondeploymentor
thisiswhathasbeenagreedontheroleoftheresident
judge in the concordat. It still plainly has a
continuing day to day impact on the actual practical
resolving of particular issues.
Q44 Lord Woolf: Do you see its role changing when
you cease to be Lord Chancellor?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I think it will go on
forever. Ithinkitwill bemoreimportantwhenIhave
gone because it is the record of what we agreed and
it represents the settlement that was reached at that
particular time. It seems to me that I can always say
at the moment “What we meant was this” which my
successor cannot do, he will have to rely on the
words.
Q45 Baroness O’Cathain: From time to time in
recent years there have been periods of tension or
disagreement
between
the
judiciary
and
the
Government,oftenarisingfromHomeOYcematters
and involving robust comment from ministers to the
news media. What advice do you give to your fellow
9
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
ministersaboutthecontentandtoneoftheirremarks
about individual court judgments?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You should never do
anything that undermines respect for the court
system. If you ever attack an individual judge or a
group of judges as having a particular motivation,
thatunderminesrespectforthesystem.Thatdoesnot
mean that you cannot comment adversely on
particular decisions because it is perfectly legitimate
to disagree with decisions. If you disagree with a
decision, say what you are going to do; if you are
going to appeal, say you will appeal; if you are going
to change the law, say you will change the law. If you
cannot appeal and cannot change the law then my
advice would be to keep quiet because there is not
much you can do about it.
Q46 Baroness O’Cathain: What happens if they do
not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Then I will speak to them
privately and tell them not to do it again. If they do
itagainthenIwillsaysomethingpublicly.Thatistoo
black and white an account of it, but broadly that is
the way it works.
Q47 Chairman:
Has
that
very
sequence
not
happened recently?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It has happened from time
to time.
Q48 Baroness O’Cathain: Recently?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Recently, yes.
Q49 Lord Peston: Could I go back to this whole
question of the independence of the judiciary? I am
right, Lord Chancellor, in saying that we do not
mean by “independence” that the judges should not
be subject to critical scrutiny?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, indeed not, quite the
contrary.
Q50 Lord Peston: They should be subject to critical
scrutiny.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of course. To take an easy
example to start with, the mesothelioma decision in
the House of Lords in which the House of Lords
came to a particular conclusion which people
regarded as making it harder for mesothelioma
suVerers to recover. There was widespread criticism
of that decision which was then reversed by an act of
Parliament. Not a soul that I am aware of, including
those who were party to the unpopular decision,
regarded the debate that followed the mesothelioma
decision
as
being
remotely
improper
or
inappropriate. Nobody would regard that as being
the situation. The judges were in eVect criticised for
coming to the wrong conclusions; that was regarded
as legitimate debate and the law was changed. What
is objectionable is not critical discussion of decisions;
it is something which expressly or impliedly says that
there is something wrong with these judges for
reaching this conclusion. That is where the problem
arises.Becauseagovernmentministersayingthathas
a particular impact, the Government has to be
particularly careful not to do that because it
undermines one bit of our constitution. As an
addition to that, the judges are always advised,
whether by the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord
Chancellor, to try to avoid controversy in what they
say.
That
does
not
mean
they
cannot
say
controversial things in their judgments, it does not
mean that they cannot lecture on the law, but they
should not externally get involved in what might be
described as political debate. They are, to some
extent, disabled from defending themselves so for
thatreasonaswellitisquiteimportanttohaveaclear
view about how ministers should behave. I cannot
obviously deal with non-ministers, politicians or the
media; the judges have always had to put up with
that. However, a responsible government should not
seek to undermine judges in the way that I have
described.
Q51 LordPeston:Therewassomethingelsethatyou
addedtothatthatslightlypuzzledme.Youseemedto
say that if you are a minister you might be saying,
“Yes, the law absolutely means that the judge has to
take the decision, we are not criticising the judge”.
You would then add, “There is something wrong
here” which as a minister—an elected person—you
are entitled to say that. You then seem to be saying
that if you are not in a position to right that wrong
you really ought not to be saying that there is
something wrong here. To take an obvious example,
there was a judge on television this morning
(something to do with a programme that is coming
up) andthisjudge said something to theeVect thathe
applies the law and when it comes to sentencing he
does the right sentence as he sees it, even though if he
sends someone to prison he is also aware of the fact
thattheremaybenoplacesinprisontosendanybody
to. I thought that was all very sensible and was
exactly what I would have done in his position.
Clearlyyouarenotsayingthataministerthenshould
not say, “We have to do something about this”.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You are right to pick me
up. What I was saying was that if you are a
government minister and you are saying that the law
is wrong and it should be changed but unfortunately
you cannot do anything about it, there is nothing
wrong so far as the independence of the judiciary is
concerned.Itisaprettyunwise thingforaministerto
say thatthere is somethingbut weare notgoingto do
anything about it. That is all. I was not implying that
it would be wrong for a minister to say, “The law is
10
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
this, I think the law is wrong, there is nothing I can
do about it”.
Q52 Lord Carter: It is now almost three months
since
the
DCA
July
2006
report
on
the
implementation of the Human Rights Act called for
myth busting to correct erroneous impressions about
human rights. What in practice will this or has this
entailed? Can you envisage circumstances in which
the HRA could be repealed or substantially
amended?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You read in the
newspapers and hear in our own chamber people say
that the Human Rights Act is a bad thing, for
example because Dennis Nilson was given the right
by the Human Rights Act to receive hard core
pornography in prison. That is a famous myth which
is untrue; he was not allowed to receive hardcore
pornography in prison by the prison governor. He
sought leave to apply to court to be given the right to
dosoandthejudgesdismissedhisapplicationevento
apply. The Human Rights Act gave no such right.
Another myth: the man on the roof who was holding
out against the police had a Human Rights Act right
to have Kentucky Fried Chicken supplied to him.
That is another myth. It is another myth that the
HumanRightsActrequiresthestatetogiveprisoners
drugs in prison. That was last week’s myth. All we
can do in myth busting terms—this is what we have
committed ourselves to doing—is that every time
such a myth appears in the public print or on
television or wherever, we disseminate the right
answer. For reasons I cannot adequately explain to
you, the press appear to be much more interested—
some of the press, not all of the press—in
disseminating the myth than disseminating the myth
busting. All we can do—we have committed
ourselves to doing it and the Home OYce are doing
it as well—is to correct it. There was a newspaper
calledTheDailyTelegraphwhichreported—Iamnot
sure whether it actually reported it as fact or not—
somebody quoting the Dennis Nilson myth. They
were kind enough to publish on their letters page a
correction by Cathy Ashton that that was not in fact
true. I think that was very good of The Daily
Telegraph to publish the letter. However, I am not
sure about the chance of the letter getting as much
readership as the bit earlier on in the newspaper
which referred to the Dennis Nilson myth.
Q53 LordCarter:Mysecondquestionwasaboutthe
chance of repeal or substantial amendment. Do you
not see this?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not see it no. Will we
repeal the incorporation into domestic law of the
European Convention? No, we will not. The report
you referred to in July 2006 reaYrmed the whole
government’s commitment to sticking with the
Human Rights Act.
Q54 Lord Carter: To go back to the myth busting,
youarealwayshavingtoplaycatchupwiththemyth.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Q55 Lord Carter: Have you made any attempt to
circulate all editors with a note explaining the
problem and trying to stop it at source?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I have not done that.
I think we need to think about how we try to get
ahead of the game. We have published many, many
documents saying what the Human Rights Act does
and does not do. In all of those documents we try to
bustthemyths.Wesendthemtoallthenewspapers;I
have not sent them directly to each individual editor.
You can judge as well as I what progress we are
making in that respect.
Q56 Chairman: Of course the Human Rights Act
does need this sort of particular defence from you
and your department because by definition it often
deals with minorities who may not, as you were
implying earlier, in popular newspaper terms be
popular people or well-respected people. They may
be the very people who most need the defence of the
Human Rights Act and therefore in a sense it is a
compensatory role that you have to play in getting
the balance of public opinion which is majority
opinion to understand that this exists to protect
minorities or individuals.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, and the other bit of it
is that all of the rights that are in the Human Rights
Act would be rights that I think most individuals
would regard as being obviously necessary and
obviously right. Whois going to object to theright to
a fair trial or the right to free speech or the right to a
private life, all of those matters? The Human Rights
Act in eVect brought those rights together. Because,
however, they are perceived to be too lawyerly in
some places and perhaps coming from Europe, that
leads to an unpopularity which they do not deserve.
Q57 Chairman: When you say “coming from
Europe” I think it is probably true that most of the
content of the European Convention on Human
Rights came originally from British lawyers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You are absolutely right.
Q58 Lord Goodlad: Lord Chancellor, the Kilmuir
rules no longer operate to bar judges from speaking
to the news media, giving speeches or writing articles
that might be critical of government policy or on
matters of public controversy. In what kind of
circumstances do you think it is now legitimate for
members
of
the
senior
judiciary
to
criticise
government policy outside the confines of the
11
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
courtroom? As a supplementary, can I ask whether
you draw a distinction between the role of the Lord
Chief Justice, as head of the judiciary, and other
judges?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: To take the general point
first, I think it is generally a bad idea for judges to be
criticising the Government on policy issues for two
reasons. The first reason is that I think the public
want judges to be unpolitical and criticising the
Government on its policy issues tends to get you into
political areas. Secondly—and separately—where
there are debates on policy in which judges appear to
disagree with the Government it may very frequently
be the case that those very same judges then have to
enforce laws about which it might be said they have
expressed disagreement. Generally I think it is a bad
idea and that is why the sort of quid pro quo that I
was referring to before, that because the judges are
inhibited in publicly defending certain things or
making public speeches, the quid pro quo should be
the Lord Chancellor and all the other government
ministers behaving in a particular way with the Lord
Chancellor defending them within government.
There are areas where I think it is legitimate for
judges to speak out and say particular things and
those are areas where they speak with a particular
expertise,forexamplehowthecourtsworkandissues
like that. It must be legitimate for judges to say, “If
you introduce this proposal the consequence will be
that all the courts get gummed up and nothing will
happen for years”. I think it is quite a limited area. I
am guided in what I say by, in part, what Lord
Bingham said in the practice direction that he issued
about whenlordswho arejudiciallords shouldspeak
in the Lords on issues. He said, “Do not speak on
issue of political controversy; do not speak on any
issue where it mightbe thatthe courts haveto ruleon
theparticularpoint”.Thatseemstometobetheright
way to inform the way that judges should talk.
Should the Lord Chief Justice have a special role?
Yes, I think he should. I think by and large—
althoughitisamatterforthejudgesandnotforme—
onevoiceisbetterthanacacophonyofvoices.Ithink
decisions about when the judges should speak out
about an issue that aVects them particularly or in
respect of which they have an expertise should be a
matter for the Lord Chief Justice because I think, as
a matter of practicality, all of the judges speaking is
not such a good idea.
Q59 Lord Goodlad: If a senior member of the
judiciarywereto speak outinawaythatyou thought
was inappropriate, would you think it appropriate
for you to do anything about it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I could not do anything
about it. If the Lord Chief Justice thought it was
appropriate to do something about it then he would
have to do something about it, but I certainly could
not now say to an individual judge in any oYcial
capacity, “Do not say that”. If I thought that he was
going too far I might raise it with the Lord Chief
Justice.
Q60 LordGoodlad:Youmightspeakprivatelytothe
Lord Chief Justice.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Q61 Lord Windlesham: Can we now turn to
domestic relationships, and that is the continuing
presenceoftheseniorjudiciaryintheHouseofLords
and the relationship between the two? I was
personally not alone I think in welcoming the
continuation
of
this
strange,
almost
unique,
arrangement, butthere itis, itis in theConstitutional
Reform Act and it can be welcomed as a result.
However, some questions arise. The senior judiciary
will no longer have the ability to speak on the floor
of the House to raise concerns they may have about
governmentpolicy aVectingthe judiciaryandinstead
the
Lord
Chief
Justice
may
make
written
representations to Parliament (that is under section
five of the Constitutional Reform Act). Lord Woolf
is no doubt listening closely to this question. May I
ask you this, on what sort of issues do you envisage
this new mechanism being exercised? Do you see it in
your mind as a rarely used power or would you
welcome a more routine and regular use of the
mechanism? The written representations will be to
Parliament rather than to the Government, but do
you envisage that the Government will often need to
respond formally in some way?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The sorts of issues that I
would envisage the new mechanism being exercised
for would be serious issues only. It would be, in my
view, a rarely used power; it would be used for issues
that
touch
and
concern
in
particular
the
independence or the position of the judiciary. So, for
example, if there was a proposal which the Lord
Chief Justice regarded as aVecting the independence
of the judiciary (for example something that aVected
their terms and conditions in a way that he or she
regarded as undermining their independence). It is
that sort of issue. Or, in a very extreme case, if the
Lord Chief Justice thought the resourcing of the
court system was such that there could not be a
properly functioning court system, that would be
another sort of issue that could be raised. Or, if the
Lord Chief Justice thought there was undue
interference in the appointments system (which is
now
handled
by
the
Judicial
Appointments
Commission). Those sorts of issues, as it were very,
very serious issues, the representations to Parliament
being the nuclear option, because almost invariably
thesortsofissueswillbeissuesthatareprimarilywith
the executive and I would envisage that prior to
representations being made to Parliament those
12
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
issues would have been raised between the judiciary
andtheexecutiveandtherewouldhavebeenalackof
satisfaction in relation to those debates.
Q62 Lord Windlesham: Could I ask you, without
compromising the need to preserve ministerial
discretion in these matters, did you have diYculty
with your ministerial colleagues in persuading them
that judges should still be in the House of Lords, this
strange situation which has arisen for historical
reasons? Or is it accepted that this is the way things
work in this country?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not recall having
diYculties. Without breaking any confidences, my
ministerial colleagues have a variety of diVering
views about the House of Lords. By and large I find
that most of my ministerial colleagues’ views on the
House of Lords do not focus on the judicial element
in the House of Lords; there are a lot of other, more
significant issues as far as the House of Lords is
concerned which they tend to stop at before they get
tothejudges.Theyhavenotseenproblemsinrelation
to the judges in the House of Lords particularly. The
issue about the judges coming out of the House of
Lords was to do with the principle of whether or not
you should have a supreme court and they were
supportive of that principle.
Q63 Lord Carter: I am not entirely clear on this
point. There was discussion when all this was going
on about having either a select committee or a joint
select committee which would be there to receive the
representations. In the absence of that it seems to me
now that your annual visits to this Committee and
other representations will do, if they used the nuclear
option
and
referred
to
Parliament,
not
the
Government, who would respond? Presumably
Parliament hands it over to the executive to respond.
LordFalconerofThoroton:Iwouldhavethoughtthere
would have to be a government response. Can I just
pick up on one thing? As a matter of practice the
Constitutional AVairs Select Committee in the
Commons has, from time to time, had as witnesses
senior members of the judiciary. Quite recently a
number of family judges came and spoke about the
extent to which family proceedings should be public.
That seems to be a classic issue in which the judges
have a view because they are extremely used to
knowing what the eVects of having press or public in
would be. I believe this Committee has, from time to
time, had judges before it as well. Lord Woolf will be
better able to say this authoritatively than I, but in
the course of the discussions we had during the
passage of the Constitutional Reform Act there was
absolutelynohostility onthe partofthe judgesto the
judges regularly giving evidence to committees in
Parliament as long as it was about issues that did not
touch on individual cases and was not drawing them
into politics. Lord Woolf himself has given evidence
to various select committees; I think Lord Phillips
has given evidence here.
Q64 Chairman: As a matter of record, if I could
interrupt, we have only had Lord Chief Justice
Phillips in front of this Committee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, but other judges have
gone to the Constitutional AVairs Select Committee
in the other place. This is not the only route and by
and large there does not seem to be that much
diYculty about it. It is one of those areas where it is
easy to reach agreement.
Q65 Chairman: It would probably be a pity if one
were to think of Parliament’s role in this greater
separation of powers between the three arms of the
constitution if Parliament’s role were thought of as
the nuclear option because there may well be a point
at which parliamentary accountability is helpful and
not simply a last resort.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think there is a world of
diVerence
between
Parliament
being
quite
legitimately critical of ministers for doing things that
Parliament might regard as oVending against
constitutional principles or the independence of the
judges and the Lord Chief Justice on the other hand
taking advantage—we assume legitimately—of a
particular power to say, “What the Government
proposes is so diYcult for me that I feel I have to tell
you, Parliament, why I object to it”. Indeed, I think
that if the representations were used on a routine
basis—which I am quite sure would not be the
intention—then Ithink thatwould greatlyreduce the
eVect of the power. Youwant thepower to be usedin
circumstances where, if it is used, the constitutional
ramifications are such that you would want the
representations to be acted upon. That, inevitably,
involves using the power, I believe, very sparingly.
Q66 Chairman: I think we may, in diVerent ways, be
saying the same thing, that a normative lower key
method of communication might be valuable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Q67 Lord Rowlands: When senior members of the
judiciary express concerns to the Government, how
open and transparent should these be?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think this goes back to
thequestionsIwasbeingaskedaboutwhetherjudges
should make public their concerns about policy. I
think there should be detailed discussions privately
on particular issues. By and large I do not think they
should be made public. If they are made public you
do not want to create that question in the public’s
mind: “Do the judges like this law or not?” The
successofoursystemisthatjudgesdonotdopolitics;
13
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
they simply give eVect to the law in an independent
way.
Chairman: Lord Woolf, if you would like to come in
on this round of questioning you would be extremely
welcome.
Q68 Lord Woolf: I can indicate that what the Lord
Chancellor has said very much accords with my own
views,particularlywith regardto puttingastatement
before the House (or both Houses) is undervalued it
seems to me if it was used other than for issues of
constitutionalimportanceintheeyesofthejudiciary.
As I understand it, the Lord Chancellor agrees with
me about that. Do you see as a second part of that
power the related power which is dependent on
convention that in appropriate circumstances the
Chief Justice can ask to see the prime minister to
express his concerns?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes. Of course the Lord
Chief Justices can do that. Whether it is part of the
constitution or whether there is a prime minister in
the world who would refuse to see the Lord Chief
Justices I do not know. On the basis that it is used
sparingly, yes.
Q69 Lord Windlesham: Has it been done in modern
times and, if so, on what issue?
LordFalconerofThoroton:Iamawareofitbeingdone
on two occasions, once during the course of this
Government and once during the course of the
previous Government. I will not say which, but one
was completely unsuccessful and one was successful.
Q70 Chairman: What do you mean by “successful”?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Lord Chief Justice
said that they disagreed with this and they wanted
this and that happened. The other one they said the
same and the Prime Minister said, “I’ve listened to
whatyousaybutIamsorry,Iamcontinuingwiththe
course I have adopted”.
Q71 LordWindlesham:Wasthisdoneinconfidence?
LordFalconer of Thoroton: Obviouslythe content is in
confidence, yes.
Q72 Lord Windlesham: The fact that there had been
discussions or intervention, was that known?
LordFalconerofThoroton:Itmaywellhavebeendone
in confidence but it certainly became known on both
occasions. It was reported widely in the newspapers
on both occasions. It was intended to be secret, I am
quite sure.
Q73 Lord Carter: In the debate on the ouster clause
in anti-terrorism, I have just forgotten how that got
intothepublicdomain.WasthatastatementbyLord
Bingham? Was it a representation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The ouster clause was not
in terrorism, it was in the Asylum and Immigration
Bill and it was actually in the bill and I think the then
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, made a number of
publicspeechescomplainingbitterlyabouttheouster
clause. That was a very, very public debate. You can
check that later but I think that was broadly the
position and then we withdrew the clause from the
bill between the Commons and the Lords.
Q74 Chairman: This infrequent event of the Lord
Chief Justice wanting to see the Prime Minister,
would you expect that to be done through the Lord
Chancellor or directly?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think the oYce may
facilitatethearrangementbuttheintentionisthatthe
Lord Chief Justice should speak directly to the prime
minister. I suspect it is partly to do with the fact that
they may not be getting satisfaction from the Lord
Chancellor at the time; I am pretty sure that could be
the reason.
Q75 Lord Morris of Aberavon: The chiefs of the
general staV, they have access direct to the prime
minister.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, quite.
Chairman: And the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Q76 LordPeston:Ithinkyouhavemoreorlessdealt
with the question I was supposed to ask you, it is
about
the
problems
arising
from
the
inter-
relationship between the Government, Parliament
and the judiciary. Would I be right in interpreting
everything you have been saying today that where
these problems exist you personally see the way to
deal with them as a rather informal approach, rather
than starting to write new bits to the constitution in
a very formal way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, subject only to this,
that there is resting on the Lord Chancellor’s
shoulders a responsibility to try to make them work
so that there is a formal responsibility on him to try
to ensure that they work. My experience is that
because the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord
Chancellor both have a responsibility—informal so
far as the Lord Chief Justice is concerned but formal
so far as the Lord Chancellor is concerned—by and
large,becausetheirmotivationisfortheretobepeace
rather than tension, it works.
Q77 Lord Smith of Clifton:Referring to our meeting
last year, Lord Chancellor, I did ask you about your
review of diVerent voting systems in this country and
you said you were undertaking it and your
permanent
secretary
has
since
said
to
the
Constitutional AVairs Committee that the report
would definitely be published. Might I ask when?

14
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
22 November 2006
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton
LordFalconerofThoroton:Youmayaskwhen.Asyou
can tell from the fact that this is a question being
asked 12 months later, this is a most serious piece of
work that is going on internally and it will be
published; I reaYrm our commitment to that. I
cannot give you a precise date, but I can tell you that
progress is being made in relation to it.
Q78 Chairman: Can you give us an indication of the
sort of timescale? Soon?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Not really. It will certainly
happen. We have a manifesto commitment to it. I
would not like to commit myself to “soon”, but
within a reasonable time.
Q79 Viscount Bledisloe: Is the new system wholly in
place or are there still parts of the judicial
appointments that are being made under the old
system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not wholly in place. I
am continuing to make judicial appointments in the
old way where the process for a particular
competition was half-way through, and that includes
the High Court Bench (which I will continue until
approximately spring of next year). Once spring is
reached then I will completely relinquish any role,
save in one area which is appointments to the House
of Lords, which depends on the supreme court
coming into force.
Q80 Chairman: Are you happy that it is taking until
next spring for you to remove yourself from that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think it is an incredibly
important thing to do, to get a whole new Judicial
Appointments Commission in place and running. I
think it is sensible for there to be a transition period
that takes as longas it takes for it to happen. I do not
think the right thing to do is to rush into it. I have
triedtodoitasquicklyasisreasonable.Forexample,
in relation to High Court appointments there was a
competition in which people were urged to apply; we
are still operating on that list. The Judicial
Appointments Commission have advertised for new
peopletoapply;theywillnotbereadywithalistuntil
the spring of next year so the sensible thing is that I
continue to take responsibility for something that is
not their work and then they take it over when they
can.
Q81 Chairman: Are you able to tell yet what sort of
impact this is having on the composition diversity
balance of the Bench? Is it too early to tell?
Lord
Falconer
of
Thoroton:
The
Judicial
Appointments Commission started in place in April
2006, a few months ago, and they have made
incredibly few appointments. It is impossible at the
moment to tell what eVect it has had. The main eVect
ondiversity—remember thatmeritis the solebasisof
appointment—is going to come from people being
more encouraged to apply, increasing the pool of
people who apply. I think it is too early to say what
eVect that has had.
Q82 Chairman: If you remember, this was a matter
of great concern on all sides in the House that the
quality of the Bench should not be compromised and
yet the Government wanted there to be a wider pool
fromwhichmeritoriouscandidates couldbedrawn.I
realise it is early days,but can youtake aview of how
long it will be before you and the Judicial
Appointments Commission between you are able to
take a view of how successful you have been in
balancing those two aims?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In the three and a half
years that I have been making judicial appointments
before the Judicial Appointments Commission has
come in, I think there has not been remotely a
dilution in quality—indeed I think it has gone up—
and I think the pool has increased. If you look at the
figures the number of black and minority ethnic
judgesandthenumberof womenjudgeshasgoneup.
Q83 Chairman:Thereisprogressbutitistoosoonto
make any overall assessment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope there will be
continuing progress—I am sure there will be
continuing progress—but there is a long way to go.
Q84 Chairman: Lord Chancellor, you have been
very generous with your time. Thank you very much
for you candid, sometimes provocative, answers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Thank you for having me.
15
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
WEDNESDAY 6 DECEMBER 2006
Present
Bledisloe, V
Peston, L
Goodlad, L
Rowlands, L
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Smith of Clifton, L
(Chairman)
Windlesham, L
Lyell of Markyate, L
Woolf, L
Morris of Aberavon, L
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Ms Clare Dyer, Legal Editor, The Guardian, Ms Frances Gibb, Legal Editor, The Times, and
Mr Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor, The Daily Telegraph, examined.
Chairman: Good morning and welcome. Thank you
very much for coming to share your insights with us;
we are very grateful. As you know we are doing a
short inquiry into the relationships between the
judiciary and the executive in the new post-reform
situationinwhichwenowareandwearetryingtosee
what role, if any, there is for Parliament in that as
well. It is good to have the chance to talk to
distinguished
doyens
of
the
legal
journalism
profession of the sort we have here. I should just say
that this evidence session will be televised and also I
have to ask my colleagues whether they have any
declarations of interest to make before we start. I
should declare that I am Chairman of the Hansard
Society for Parliamentary Government. Are there
any other declarations?
Lord Woolf: I declare an interest as a former Chief
Justice who still sits as a judge.
Q85 Chairman: Thank you. I should also say that a
transcript of the evidence will be available for you to
lookatafterwards.Idonotknowifanyofyouwould
like to make any sort of opening observations; if not
we will go straight into questions. If there is
something that each or all of you would like to say,
now is a good moment to do it.
Mr Rozenberg: I would just say that I did write
something about this subject in response to some
draft questions from your learned clerk which
appeared in The Telegraph on 20 October. By all
means, if that is of any use to you, please take that as
my evidence. Apart from that I think all we wanted
to say was that it is going to be rather diYcult for us
to report this session, so we are in a rather unusual
position.
Q86 Chairman: To start the questioning, obviously
ourfocal interest is the waysinwhich the newsmedia
portrays judges and, when there are these periodic
spats between ministers and judges, the way they are
reported.Iwonderinyourowncareers—particularly
that part of your careers as legal editors—how you
perceive relationships having changed between the
senior judiciary and the news media, given that you
have had a very great change in the reality of what
you are reporting in terms of the relationships. How
do you perceive the changes in the way the news
media report it? Perhaps I should say, do not feel
obligedallofyoutorespondtoeverypoint,butifyou
have something that might help us we would be
grateful.
Ms Dyer: Perhaps I could start oV with the
relationship between the news media and the judges.
My career goes back to the early 1980s; the Kilmuir
Rulesgobackto1955andtheLordChancelloratthe
time, Lord Kilmuir, was asked by the BBC to allow
judges to take part in a programme about famous
judges of the past. He wrote a letter back saying that
judges should not appear on the wireless or on
television
without
the
consent
of
the
Lord
Chancellor. It developed that judges did not speak to
the media because of course they knew that if they
asked the Lord Chancellor the Lord Chancellor
would say no. Lord Hailsham continued that
tradition and it was not until Lord Mackay became
LordChancellorin1987thathe,inhisfirstinterview,
said that the Kilmuir Rules no longer apply and that
judges were free to decide themselves whether to
speak to the media or not. Since then judges have
participatedalotmoreindiscussioninthemediaand
have taken part in programmes. Lord Chief Justice,
Lord Taylor, wason QuestionTimeontelevisionand
of course Lord Woolf, when he became Lord Chief
Justice, was very media friendly and gave regular
briefings. To some extent it depends on the Lord
ChiefJusticeofthetime.IthinkLordPhillipshasnot
yet given a media briefing, he has just given one
interview. However, the judges themselves have
become
much
more
forthcoming
and
are
interviewed. I did a series of interviews last year with
judges about a very political subject. Traditionally
they have notspoken on politics, but in this case they
spoke on conditions of anonymity and were very,
very forthcoming indeed about how they felt the
Government was trying to marginalise them with a
series of acts which were reducing their discretion.
16
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
Q87 Chairman: That last point is exceptionally
interesting. Are we going to move in the same
direction as the parliamentary press gallery and
lobbyterms? Arewegoingto havejudgesgivingdeep
background briefings but strictly non-attributable
that you would then write stories about?
MsDyer:Ihavedonethatsincethenonanotherissue
which now escapes me. I have spoken to a number of
judges since then.
Mr Rozenberg: I wrote a story a week or two ago
saying that senior judges were concerned about
legislation which has been passed and which is due to
come into eVect. I did not name the judges but two
judges had spoken to me spontaneously and
independently expressing concern. I do not think it is
going to be particularly widespread but one does see
judges informally more and more and sometimes if
thereissomethingthattheyareconcernedaboutthey
do in fact talk about it.
Ms Gibb: Can I go back to what Clare was saying at
the beginning on the historical context? I think in 20
years,asClarewassaying,itisquiteachangenotjust
withtheLord Chancellors andtheKilmuirRules but
actually a change in the attitude of the judiciary
followingLordLane’stenure.Heverymuchtookthe
view that judges should just say what they had to say
incourtandshouldhavenothingtodowiththepress.
In a sense that really brought the whole issue to a
crisisbecausehewasquitewidelycriticised—unfairly
to some degree—but partly that emanated from the
stance he took. Following that Lord Taylor took a
distinctdecisiontoopenthewholethingup,todothe
Question Time that Clare has mentioned and to do
pressconferences, interviewsetcetera. Itwas apolicy
decision. Somefeel that heactually went toofar, that
the Question Time performance was a mistake
because there you had a senior judge talking about
matters beyond the criminal justice or civil justice
system and discussing policy matters. Following that
I think there has been a bit of a rowing back as well
and now we are at the position where I think judges
are trying to find a middle way, not quite back to the
Question Time, but how do they, in the new regime,
have a relationship with the media?
MsDyer: I think thatis trueof the LordChief Justice
but I do not think things have changed with the
individual senior judges. I think they are as
forthcoming as they were previously.
Mr Rozenberg: I think it is very significant that the
present Lord Chief Justice has not had a single press
conferenceinmorethanayear.LordWoolf,whenhe
was Lord Chief Justice, followed the practice of his
immediate predecessors and did speak to the media.
Lord Phillips has quite deliberately chosen not to,
which is all the more significant given his increased
responsibilitiesabout whichIknow youwantto talk.
Q88 Chairman: The logic of a greater separation of
powers is that the judiciary, like other important
bodiesinoursociety,hasinasensetomakeacasefor
itself. It has to constantly be validating what it does,
the value of what it does and how well it does it to
various stakeholders, notably the British public. I
wondered
what
you thought of
the
Judicial
Communications OYce which presumably, if there
were a press conference or if there were a press
release, would be dealing with it. What more, if
anything, should they be doing or are they doing?
MrRozenberg:Whattheycoulddoisactasthepublic
spokesmanforthejudgesin awaythattheycurrently
donotdo.EithertheLordChiefJusticeorsomebody
deputising for him could and should speak out or, if
he thinks that he wants to maintain a low profile for
tactical reasons, the Judicial Communications OYce
could have a public spokesman who is trained, able
andauthorisedtospeakonthejudges’behalfwithout
having to refer everything that he or she might say to
an individual judge. In the sense that Sir Bernard
InghamknewLadyThatcher’smind,thisspokesman
would know what the judges were thinking without
the needtocheck eachindividualcomment thathe or
she might make. This would be a radical departure,
butifthejudgesaregoingtofollowthepracticeofthe
present Lord Chief Justice and not speak publicly
when they are under attack, it might be a good idea
to enlarge the role of the Judicial Communications
OYce beyond the routine of putting out press
statements and organising press conferences.
Q89 Chairman: Something slightly more proactive
and less reactive.
Ms Gibb: That obviously requires a big step, a leap of
faith, because the person has to be entrusted to say
what the judges would want to say. The only
alternative to that is having half a dozen judges who
are ready and able to do that press person role on
television, radio and so onwhich they havenot really
developed.
Ms Dyer: They need somebody who is ready on the
day to produce a correct version of what has
happened. Forexample,inthe caseofCraig Sweeney
there was a huge outcry sparked by ministers saying
thatthisjudgehasgot itwrong, heistoo lenient,then
about two days later something was released saying
that it was completely in line with the existing
guidelines and spelt it out chapterand verse howthat
was the only decision he could have reached. There
ought to have been somebody in the Judicial
Communications OYce who could have found out
that information and put it out on the day and
countered what ministers were saying or maybe even
stopped them saying it. We would not then have this
idea that there were these terribly lenient judges who
werejustdoingitoVthetopoftheirheads.Thepublic
needs to know that they are acting on guidelines.
Mr
Rozenberg:
On
the
whole
the
Judicial
Communications OYce feels that it cannot speak for
the judges, it cannot pre-empt the judges, without
17
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
authority from a senior judge or the individual judge
concerned. They will gladly put out the judge’s
sentencing remarks or any comments that the judge
wants to be passed to the media but, as Clare says,
theyarenotgoingtotakeaproactiveroleandexplain
something—quite unlike the press oYce of any
department—the Department for Constitutional
AVairs, for example—which would move quite
rapidly to rebut something that ministers do not like.
Ms Dyer: They need to be following the media,
hearing what is on the radio and immediately get in
touch with the judge, work out what the actuality is
and put that out immediately.
Q90 Lord Woolf: That should happen; it is
obviously highly desirable. However, I would
question thepracticality of ithappeningasquicklyas
that, speaking with some experience. First of all the
press oYce has to find out what the judge actually
said in hissentencing remarks. Without thatit is very
diYculttoformajudgment.Secondly,therehastobe
somebody who is suYciently familiar in that
particularareaof the lawand Iamafraid ourlawhas
become so complicated that there are problems in
being able to make a clear answer. For the judiciary
to issue something which is not correct can make the
position worse. Do you think there is force in what I
have just suggested to you and really you are asking
something which the judiciary would not be capable
of doing? I should add, the judges who could give
authority would have to be of seniority and they are
probably sitting in court.
Ms Gibb: I think it can and should be done within a
day. You can get out the sentencing remarks that
verydayifitisahighprofile,controversialcase.That
part of it should be possible. As for finding a judge
who is available, that is where you need to build up
a network of people who can and are able to issue a
statement. It does not need to be long but it needs to
be there. The Sweeney case was a perfect example of
howdamagingitcanbetohavethatgapwithnobody
stepping in and in this case neither the Lord
Chancellor nor the Lord Chief Justice actually said
anything for two or three days by which time pages
and pages of the story were running, particularly in
the tabloid press.
Q91 Lord Morris of Aberavon: The case of Sweeney
has been mentioned. There was a gap. The judgment
was on a Monday; I was rung up on the evening of
Monday and discovered what had happened in the
course of Tuesday. I did 10 television and radio
interviews but there was a complete gap from the
Lord Chancellor. If you recall I think he made a
statement first to defend the Home Secretary. Only
lately, after the intervention of a junior minister, did
he speak up. The correction of fact is simple; that
could have been done. What do you expect this
information oYce to do other than that?
Ms Dyer: They do not need to have huge expertise in
wideareasofthelaw.Themainareaofcontroversyis
sentencing actually. Most controversial cases involve
sentencing. You could have somebody who knew
about sentencing who was there for that particular
purpose. They have about three press oYcers I think
soyoucouldhaveonepersontherewhoknowsabout
sentencing and who is in contact with the judges.
Surely with technology the sentencing remarks could
be put through the intranet. You can anticipate to
some extent which cases are going to give rise to
controversy.
Q92 Lord Lyell of Markyate: The Sweeney case
almost tested the system to destruction for a few
days. Whether or not the responsibility is on both
sides,
you
pointed
out
what
the
Judicial
Communications OYce might in future do in
circumstances like that, but was there not also a very
immediate duty on the Lord Chancellor and on all
ministers to abide by what is now the law about not
criticising judges and being extremely temperate in
any comment one makes on a judicial decision?
Ms Gibb: That case was unusual in that judges were
under fire both from ministers and from the media
andIthinkthatneitherpartyactedswiftlyenough.In
thatcase the LordChancellor shouldhave steppedin
much more quickly to defend judges in the face of
some of his colleagues’ comments. Simultaneously
the Lord Chief Justice could have given a short
statement saying that the judge was acting within the
law as set down by Parliament.
Mr Rozenberg: The context of that case was, as Lord
Morrissays, thatthe judgment was on a Monday but
thepreviousdayTheSundayTimeshadreportedthat
more than 200 of Britain’s top judges had given
undulylenientsentencestocriminalsguiltyofserious
crimes, according to a list released by the Attorney
General. There was already an appetite by Monday
for lenient sentences and soft judges. The Sun started
naming and shaming these judges. I rang up the
Department of Constitutional AVairs to see if the
Lord Chancellor was going to be speaking and I was
told by a relatively junior press oYcer that given the
constitutional position having changed and the Lord
Chief Justice now being head of the judiciary it was a
matter for the Lord Chief Justice to speak out,
although I was then told that the Lord Chancellor
had agreed to do Question Time on the television late
that Wednesday evening and I was given to
understand he might say something, but of course it
was going to be too late for Thursday’s papers. The
Lord Chief Justicewasabroadin Poland, buteven so
morecouldhavebeendoneanditappearedtousthat
the Lord Chancellor was leaving the judges to swing
in the wind, feeling that it was a matter for the Lord
18
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
Chief Justice to respond—which he felt he did not
want to do, certainly publicly.
Q93 Chairman: Just moving on a little bit, you
clearly are very potentially influential in shaping
perceptions, and I wonder the extent to which jointly
and severally you see yourselves—as I am sure all
journalists of integrity do—as merely reporting as
accurately as you can what is going on or whether
you would concede that what you write and what is
written in other sorts of newspapers how far that
actually serves to shapethe public’s perceptionof the
judiciary and therefore whether all journalists who
report on this sort of issue have any special
responsibility over and above the general integrity of
a good journalist.
Mr Rozenberg: I think we do have that responsibility.
There is a limit to what we can do on our own
initiative,althoughIthinkwealltriedtoexplaintoas
manypeopleaswantedtolistenthebasisoftheCraig
Sweeney decision. It so happened that yesterday the
same judge, the Recorder of CardiV, Judge GriYth
Williams QC, passed a sentence of two and a half
years for involuntary manslaughter. It was recalled
by the news agency that he was in the judge in the
Sweeney case and there was the makings of a soft
judge (in quotation marks) story. “Was he not the
judge in the Sweeney case?” people said. “Yes”, we
responded to our news desks, but of course he was
entirely vindicated in that case when the Attorney
General decided not to refer the case to the Court of
Appeal as unduly lenient because the Attorney
General took the viewthat the sentence would not be
increased by the Court of Appeal and indeed the
sentence—or, to be more accurate, the tariV—was
endorsed by the Lord Chancellor. I made it clear to
my news desk that whether or not two and a half
years was unduly lenient—and it struck me that it
was not on the authorities in this sort of case—it
certainly was not another example of a judge getting
it wrong because the Recorder of CardiV had got it
rightonthepreviousoccasion.Wedoallthetimetalk
to our news desks, and those involved, and explain
how we see the stories as being diVerent from the
immediatereactionofthosewhohavenotbeeninthis
area of work for as long as we have.
Q94 Chairman: Do either of your colleagues have
anything to add on that point?
Ms Dyer: I think that is right but I do think that the
media do play a big role in how the public see judges,
notonly inthiscountrybut inothercountries aswell.
I come from Canada and in Canada the supreme
court has had a very bad reputation for a long time
for being too interventionist just as the judges here in
some quarters are thought to be too human rights
based, too ready to allow things on human rights law
that the public disagree with. Even among quite
sensible commentators in Canada there was a view
which has apparentlychangednow because thecourt
recognised this and tried to do something about it in
their judgments. It is certainly not new. I remember
back in the timeof Spycatcher one of the tabloidsran
a front page of the judges upside down, the ones who
had ruled in favour of the Government and it said,
“You fools” at the top of it. I think there is a lot of
incorrect reporting about the judiciary which does
play a big role in how the public see the judges.
Q95 Lord Goodlad: I would like to ask how the
witnesses see the perceptions of the readers of your
respective newspapers of the role of the judges and
how, if at all, that has changed in recent years.
MsDyer:Judgeswereseentobetooright-winginthe
time of John GriYth who wrote The Politics of the
Judiciaryback inthetime of Thameside(Lord Woolf
said that whenhe died “Thameside” wasbound to be
written on his heart). They were then seen to be too
right-winggenerally.Nowtheyareseentobetooleft-
wing, too bleeding liberal, too wet.
Mr Rozenberg: Too pro-human rights and too soft.
Too soft on sentencing is how they are perceived.
Ms Dyer: At one time they were seen to be terribly
establishment minded and they would always rule on
the side of the Government and to some extent that
is true.Now theyare seen to bemuch tooliberal. The
Government tries to get tough and do things to help
the public and the judges sabotage it. That is the
general view.
Q96 LordGoodlad:Isthisreflectedinreaders’letters
to you and your news editors?
Ms Gibb: Not to us.
Q97 Lord Goodlad: How do you reach that
impression?
Mr Rozenberg: It is diYcult but I think it is the public
view that you get reflected from news desks. Just as
there is a popular myth that judges in this country
bang gavels, these myths are very hard to dispel.
Stories fit into a particular template. The story of a
soft judge letting somebody oV too lightly fits into
that template very well and therefore tends to get
prominence in a newspaper because it is a story that
a news desk can understand. If it is something
particularly obscure, however interesting to the
lawyers, but doesnot fit into a preconceivedcategory
like sentencing or like ministers being successfully
judicially reviewed and being found to be acting
unlawfully it is more diYcult to get that sort of story
into the paper.
Q98 Lord Rowlands: I wonderif I couldbroaden the
discussion. Is this discussion we are having now
reflectingtheseachangetakingplacebetweenuswith
the executive and the judiciary, between Parliament
19
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
and the judiciary? I read with interest Vernon
Bogdanor’slectureon“ParliamentandtheJudiciary:
The Problem of Accountability”. He says this: “that
judges are increasingly making decisions, which used
to be made by politicians, and which many will
characterise as political. The decisions made by
judges tend to limit the options available to
government. It is very possible, therefore, that there
will be greater conflict between the judiciary and
Parliament”. Has there been a change in the whole
relationship beyond the issue of just the way it is
being reported?
Ms Dyer: Yes. The law has changed and the judges
are only interpreting the law.
Q99 Lord Rowlands: So you think human rights
legislation has been the watershed in this?
MsDyer:IncorporatingtheEuropeanConventionof
Human Rights into our law means that the judges
have to go further than they previously might have
gone in deciding something. It gives them more
discretion because they have to see whether
something complies with article two, article three. It
has brought discretion in judicial review.
Ms Gibb: That was the previous change, the growth
of judicial review, which really brought the judges
into the limelight and made them have to adjudicate
on more politically sensitive decisions.
Mr Rozenberg: It is interesting to speculate on what
would have happened if the Human Rights Act had
notbeenenacted,whetherjudicialreviewwouldhave
grown anyway. I think that it might because if you
look at the period up to the general election of 1997,
you saw the then Labour Opposition very cautious
about opposing what was going on for fear of not
winningthe1997electionandyousawtosomeextent
the judges under Lord Taylor stepping into the gap
and acting as a sort of unoYcial opposition I think.
You have seen that subsequently under the present
Government when again the Opposition has been
reluctant to oppose too much and the judges to some
extent see themselves as defenders of the public
interest.
Ms Dyer: Ifa government has abig majority—as this
one has, or certainly had—and tries to exceed their
powers or push their powers as far as they can go,
then the judges have to step in and it is not because
the judges are suddenly exceeding themselves trying
to oppose the Government necessarily, it is because
the Government is pushing at the boundaries and
that is what these judgesI spoke towere complaining
about. For instance, with the ouster clause that they
were proposing when they were trying to fetter the
courts’ ability to do anything, to have any say about
immigration and asylum decisions, to question the
legality of these decisions, that was something that
judges would have done something about if they had
notsteppedback anddecidednotto goaheadwithit.
In things like the control or detention without trial
this Government has tended to push its powers
further perhaps than some other governments, also
with mandatory minimum sentences.
Q100 Lord Peston: The response of some of the
media at least to sentencing and other things could
fairly be regarded as feverish. Am I right that it is
much more feverish than it used to be? It has grown
remarkably.ThisalsorelatestoLordLyell’squestion
earlierabout ministers,whenIwasyoungitwouldbe
inconceivable for a minister to start launching an
attack—literally inconceivable—on a judge; it now
happens. The world in that sense really has changed.
Ms Gibb: I think there are two things about that.
Peoplenowobviouslychallengeanyauthorityfigures
and it is not oV limits to attack anyone in authority
in the way it might have been 30 years ago. Secondly
the sentencing framework that judges are currently
working under requires them, as you know, to
imposesentences.Thediscretionisfairlyfetteredand
a lot of these sentencing controversies arise because
judges have applied the law—as we said earlier on in
the Sweeney case—but that is not necessarily
explained fully; the press or the media do not
necessarily explain it fully and the public do not
understand or want to understand that someone is
coming out half way through the sentence. It is the
framework they are operating within and the lack of
the explanation as to how they reach the decision
because it is immensely complex.
Q101 Lord Peston: Should we assume on this
Committee thatwehavelost respectfor judges, ithas
gone forever?
Ms Gibb: I prefer to think about it as public
confidence. Respect is a bit of an old fashioned word
and I think people can still have confidence in, say,
the medical profession—call it respect if you like—
whilst they can still be open to scrutiny. We have had
Harold Shipman and we have had other medical
controversies which have not damaged the standing
generally of the medical profession in the eyes of the
public. I think you can have respect and/or public
confidence while having greater public scrutiny and
criticism.
Mr Rozenberg: I think the judges have to work for
that. I do not think they can assume, as perhaps they
used to,that itcomes automaticallywith the roleand
with the knighthood. That is why public relations is
so important and that is why perhaps it is in the
judges’ interests for them to be doing more in order
to retain—and even regain—the public’s confidence.
Chairman: Listening to Ms Gibb, it may be more
appropriate to say that it is deference that has gone,
but that does not mean it is not possible to have
respect.Itisnotoriousthatallinstitutionsnowhavea
sort of deference deficit, including thisaugust House.
20
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
Q102 Lord Peston: Could I just make sure I
understandsomethingthatwassaid?Youintroduced
this, Ms Dyer, when you were talking right at the
beginning in response to somebody. Are you saying
that Lord Phillips really ought to be taking a much
stronger role in this? That seemed to be more or less
what you were saying but you did not quite say it in
those terms. Even if we cannot act as quickly as you
said, as Lord Woolf has pointed out, someone ought
to be speaking up much more now saying, “These
people are doing a very diYcult job in very diYcult
circumstances. They are trying very hard to play
according to the rules one way or another and some
of youought toshut up”(thatis perhaps abit harsh).
Ms
Dyer:
Now
that
they
have
their
own
communicationsoYcewithseveralpressoYcersthey
should be doing this. It was done on a fire-fighting
basis
by
the
Lord
Chancellor’s
Department
previously,buttheyoughttobeanticipatingandthey
ought to have a system geared up to respond quickly
to these emergencies.
Q103 Chairman: We are left with Lord Woolf’s
problem. I remember the evidence to us from Lord
Chief Justice Phillips was that he sometimes found it
diYcult to speak for all judges at all times and he had
an extremely senior and individualistic profession by
definition. It would be diYcult for a spokesman to
speak up.
Ms Dyer: The spokesman would basically be giving
information;heisnotspeakingforthejudgesassuch.
He
is
giving
correct
information
to
correct
inaccuracies and it is not hard to anticipate the areas
of controversy.
MsGibb:Ithinkitshouldnotallfallon theshoulders
of the Lord Chief Justice. Half a dozen senior judges
could be ready to be on Newsnight or whatever so
that we always had the judicial view put in general
terms even if they do not know the specific details of
the case. There are always general points that can
be made.
Mr Rozenberg: It is not that diYcult. When these
controversial decisions emerge I sometimes get calls
from broadcasters asking if I will appear on a radio
or television programme and the first question is,
“Why has the judge done this?” It is not my job to
speak for the judges but I can at least put some of the
context before the public and if I can do it then a
judge can do it a very great deal better even if he or
she is not familiar with the precise details of that case
at that time.
Q104 Lord Woolf: I am very interested to hear what
yousay,butcouldIfirstofallaskyouifyouthinkthe
establishment of the Judicial Communications OYce
has improved the position? It is clear from what you
say that it is not satisfactory, but do you think there
is an improvement?
Ms Gibb: I think it is an essential first step as a
facilitator if nothing else to put out speeches,
particularly now that the judges have their own
empire.
Q105 Lord Woolf: The second thing that I think
comes out of what you are saying is that that
information oYce shouldknow thatsentencing is the
hot topic and they should really go on a course or
have somebody among them who knows something
about the intricacies of sentencing so that they can
give an authoritative explanation of what law
requires.
Ms Gibb: Them and/or the judges themselves.
Q106 Lord Woolf: You would like to see a judge or
judges being always available to make a clarifying
statement. The last pointis aquestion of whether itis
feasible under the pressures which the judiciary face.
If they are going to be good judges they must also sit
as judges.
Mr Rozenberg: The compromise would be to have a
lawyer available because the people in that oYce are
press oYcers trained in journalism but they are not
trained as lawyers.
Lord Woolf: That is a very clear message, if I may
say so.
Q107 Lord Lyell of Markyate: Just glancing at the
big picture and looking back over the last few years,
we had Lord Irvine who stood up strongly for the
judges, who was then dismissed and we had the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and a re-drawing of
the lines, but the Constitutional Reform Act quite
clearly puts a duty upon the Lord Chancellor and
ministers to uphold the independence of the
judiciary. If that does not happen, is it not more
eVective if the Lord Chancellor steps in quickly
rather than expecting the Judicial Communications
OYceortheLordChiefJusticetostepin?Shouldnot
each control their own?
Ms Gibb: Yes, I think they have distinct roles. I think
that is absolutely right. The Lord Chancellor should
be dealing with errant ministers but when judges are
under fire or being misunderstood by the media or
whatever the Lord Chief Justice should step in. They
both have their roles to play.
Q108 Viscount Bledisloe: Just taking up what you
said about there being a lawyer, it is going to need
more than that, is it not? As I understand it at the
moment you have press
oYcers putting out
statementsandthatsortofthingbutwhodonothave
the status to make pronouncements. You are really
going to need at the head of this oYce somebody of
the same status as the judge who can say, “I do not
know the facts at the moment, I will come back to
you”, pick up the telephone, get the judge himself
21
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
who did the thing saying, “I must talk to you
urgently”, get an answer and ring back. The press
oYcers, I am sure, do not get to speak to the judge,
they get to speak to the judge’s clerk.
Ms Dyer: They do speak to the judge.
Mr Rozenberg: Yes, they do speak to the judge but
they are maybe less able to speak for the judge and
understand what the judge is saying, and they are
certainly not able to speak on behalf of the judge
without having first spoken to the judge, whereas a
lawyer would be able to understand the point rather
morequickly andbefore speaking to thejudge would
be able to say something rather more authoritative
than a press oYcer can who has to wait for a
statement from the judge and is simply reduced to
putting that statement out.
Q109 Viscount Bledisloe: He is not going to have to
be a 25-year-old who was called two years ago; he is
going to have to be somebody of considerable
seniority who can punch his weight and get the judge
to really talk to him.
Ms Gibb: Alternatively you could use recently retired
circuit judges. I think the Judicial Communications
OYce has been considering this, a network of
recently retired circuit judges who are good with the
media.
Q110 Viscount Bledisloe: That is what I say,
somebody with status.
Ms Gibb: Yes. There are one or two now who tend to
be wheeled out.
Chairman: Perhaps we should stop there before we
draw up a detailed job specification.
Q111 Lord Smith of Clifton: Given the broad bi-
partisannatureofBritishpoliticsinwhichthereisnot
really much diVerence between one party and
another, do you think there is a tendency on the part
of editors, sub-editors and journalists to try to up the
ante in this respect to try to put back a bit of the
poetry and the contest into British politics which is
lackinginthefieldsofeconomicsandotherthings?In
other words, do you think that the reporting of legal
matters and judicial decisions has been seen as a
compensation for the rather boring nature of the rest
of British politics?
Ms Dyer: Things tend to be seen as conflict, do they
not? News desks love conflict and conflict between
judges and the executive is seen as more interesting.
A judge deciding such and such a thing which
happens to be not quite the way the Government
wanted it is played up as a snub for the home
secretary. Mind you, ministers play into that
nowadays in the way they react to court decisions
against them.
Chairman: That is one of the aspects that may be
worrying about the oV-the-recordbriefing possibility
that you started with because it makes a perfectly
satisfactory headline, “Judges’ fury at minister’s
statement”. What is that based on? It is based on an
oV-the-record
conversation—which
is
perfectly
legitimate—which a good journalist seeking to make
a conflict story would feel entitled to go on. OV the
recordsomeonemightsay,“I’mhoppingmadandall
my colleagues are as well”, then you have a “Judges’
fury” headline, have you not? There are some
diYculties about the informal thing for the judiciary,
I would have thought.
Q112 Lord Windlesham: I would like to probe, if I
may, the relationshipbetween the views of individual
journalistsandwhatmightberegardedasthegeneral
outlook and policy of the paper as a whole. It is a
delicate matter here.
Mr Rozenberg: When I joined The Daily Telegraph
from the BBC in the year 2000 I was not asked
whether I shared the political outlook of the paper as
itthenwas.IsuspectthatCharlesMoorewhooVered
me the job assumed that I did not share the political
outlook of the paper as it then was and I have not
been asked since. I do not think I do support
everything that is in the leader columns of the paper
and I am pleased to say that that is not a prerequisite
and it does not seem to cause me any problems. I can
say things on the weekly page that I write which
express my view and they may well be diVerent from
the approach of the paper particularly on, for
example, human rights, and the paper seems to
respect that which is exactly as it should be and very
gratifying.
Q113 Lord Windlesham: All three of you are of
course from what might be regarded as the more
serious end of Fleet Street and therefore your own
individual way of operation probably diVers,
neverthelessyouareallinthesamesortofbusiness.Is
this trueof the mass circulation press, sensationalism
being one obvious aspect of it?
Ms Gibb: I think it is. To answer the first question, I
think Joshua is right; I do not think individual views
come into it. I think we all have to work to a news
desk agenda andabove thatin each paper there is the
framework and the philosophy and the particular
interests of that editor and above him the owner.
That is quite removed, I have to say. We might all
write the story in a similar way but the actual
prominence it gets—this is the same with the
tabloids—and the tone of it and the space and so on
andwhetheritcarriesaneditorial,thatiswhatmakes
a diVerence. That is decided by the paper’s own
interest to a degree.
MsDyer:IaminthesamepositionasJoshua;no-one
has ever asked me about my politics or my views.
22
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
Q114 Lord Windlesham: I was not thinking entirely
of that, but there is the style and the underlying
qualityofsensationalismwhichisacrucialpartofthe
mass circulation. Reporting crime is sensational.
Ms Dyer: If you write for The Daily Mail if you write
the same story as we are writing you will write it in a
completely diVerent way. You have to follow the
paper’s agenda I would say.
MrRozenberg: Ithink thatis right.Othernewspapers
do have a view of the world and in their selection of
the news that is reflected.
Ms Dyer: Not only in their selection of news but in
the way they treat a news story.
MrRozenberg:Iagree.ItmightbediYculttoworkon
apaperthatgaveoneaverystrongdirectionas tothe
way in which that paper expected the story to be
presented. I do not think any of us is in that
unfortunate position but it would be very diYcult
werewetoldbyanewseditor,“Thisishowweseethis
story, make sure you fit that template”.
Ms Dyer: If you worked on The Daily Mail I do not
think youwould evenhavetobe toldthat, youwould
know you should write the story.
Q115 Chairman:Youhavementionedconflictbutof
course there is another respect in which the tone of a
popular newspaper likes to personalise the news so
insteadofreadingaboutJudgeAyoureadabouta52
year old father of five, passionately interested in
ballroom dancing as though that were in some way
relevant to his judgment. That, of course, is part of
the pop culture, to find personalities through which
people can relate to public events. I do not know
whether deference or respect are involved here, but it
certainly makes it quite diYcult for figures of
authority when they are put in that intensely
personalised frame.
Ms Dyer: Figures of authority, I do not think people
think in that way now. People want to know. Papers
are becoming popularised.
Ms Gibb: I think it is unavoidable.
Ms Dyer: There is human interest; people want to
know more about the people they are reading about.
Theydonotseethemasremotesphinxtypefiguresas
the judge used to be thought of in the past.
Ms Gibb: I think Lord Falconer said recently that
judges ought to be robust enough to be able to
withstand that kind of comment.
Q116 Lord Morris of Aberavon: We would like to
hear the advice you would give to the Government
abouthandlinghumanrights.TheDCAreviewedthe
ImplementationoftheHumanRightsActinJulyand
concluded that “negative and damaging myths
prevail about the Human Rights Act” and suggested
that the media were responsible for this. Do you
agree with this assessment? What advice would you
give to the Government in tackling it in a practical
way, tackling the myth that has apparently arisen?
Mr Rozenberg: I am not sure it is entirely our job to
be advising the Government on this or even this
Committee. To some extent the Government has its
own advisers and they should be capable of telling it
how itshouldfight itspublicrelationscampaign. The
Government is perfectly entitled to complain if we
perpetuate these myths, but I do not think it is for
us—I speak personally
on this—to help
the
Government out of a problem that it finds itself in.
Ms Dyer: And partly through its own creation
because one or two home secretaries have themselves
floated the idea of getting rid of the Human Rights
ActorevencomingoutoftheEuropeanConvention.
The Lord Chancellor knows but did not say for a
long time that it is impossible because part of
belonging to the EuropeanUnion is that wecontinue
to complywiththe EuropeanConvention onHuman
RightsandifweabolishtheActitwouldsimplymean
that people would just go to Strasbourg. The Lord
Chancellor, in my view, has not been proactive
enoughandisonlyrecentlycomingtotheforeonthis
issue. He should in the past have stopped all this
speculation. The Prime Minister himself speculated
on it. They must know that it is an impossible thing
to do, so why speculate on it as if it would be a
good thing.
Mr Rozenberg: I am not sure the Prime Minister does
know but he famously got it wrong.
Ms Gibb: The Joint Human Rights Committee
recently in their report in November actually
criticised the Prime Minister and ministers, as you
know, for the way that the Act is being reported. It
was not the media; they said it was ministers. I think
that is what the Government should be doing,
bringing ministers into line on it. They are peddling
the wrong image of their own legislation basically.
Ms Dyer: The Lord Chancellor and the Attorney
General have been making speeches saying that the
HumanRightsActisawonderfulthing,etcetera,but
it does not seem to have gone to the other
departments.
Q117 Lord Morris of Aberavon: I take your point
that your role is not to advise the Government. Can
I put it another way? We are trying to write a report,
what advice would you give us as to what to put in
that report to correct the myths which apparently
have grown?
Mr Rozenberg: The Government has published
documents, reports and papers setting the record
straight. The Government has passed advice to
oYcials who may not have legal training not to
exaggeratethe significanceoftheHumanRightsAct,
which is perfectly sensible. The Lord Chancellor
writes letters to the newspapers and appears on radio
and television to correct myths. I think Frances is
23
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
absolutelyright,ifthePrimeMinistercansayinprint
that the
Human Rights
Act allows
primary
legislation to be overturned by the courts as he did
thenitisnotuptoustotrytoputitright.Ifhecannot
get it right, it is not surprising that papers sometimes
mis-report it.
Q118 Lord Lyell of Markyate: We have covered a
certain amount of ground that I wanted to ask you
about. I think we have agreed that both the Lord
Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor have
important but distinct roles in the protection of the
independence of the judiciary. If we look back about
sixmonthsto19JunethisyearthepresentLordChief
Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, wrote to
circuit judges to express his “great sympathy for
those judges who individually have been singled out
for intemperate personal attack” in relation to
sentencing. He went on to say that “personal and
unmerited attacks on the characters of individual
judgescanonlydamagethepublic’sunderstandingof
and confidence in the criminal justice system as a
whole”. Do you agree that such reporting damages
public confidence in criminal justice?
Mr Rozenberg: Yes, I think there is truth in that. This
ofcoursefollowedtheCraigSweeneyepisodethatwe
have just been talking about and following his
unwillingness to speak up publicly on behalf of those
judges, although the letter was inevitably leaked as I
expect he thought it would be. The point to
emphasise is the word “reporting” in your question.
There is a limit to what we as reporters can do on our
owninitiative.Yes,wecanwritecolumns;yes,wecan
do broadcasts, but our main job is to report what
other people say and for that we rely on people in
authority speaking up on their own behalf.
Q119 Lord Rowlands: In your answers to other
questions we agreed that there was a changing role
for the judiciary and the whole relationship between
the executive and judiciary had changed with regards
tolegislationandtrends.Thisraisesthequestionthat
if judges are going to play this wider role, in what
formshouldtheybeaccountable? AgainIrefer tothe
Bogdanor lecture where he argued that it would be
perfectly
reasonable,
for
example,
for
select
committees of Parliament to ask a judge about his
judicial philosophy or general attitude to law and so
forth. Indeed, judges do give lectures and do give
theirviews.Howaccountabledoyouthinkinthenew
environment should judges be and what form should
that accountability take?
Ms Dyer: The main thing about judges is that they
have to be independent so in terms of their decisions
theyarenotaccountable.Theyareaccountabletothe
headofthejudiciary,theLordChief Justice,fortheir
behaviour but in terms of their decisions they are
independentandtheirdecisionscanbeoverturnedon
appeal if they are wrong. Ministers keep saying
“these unaccountable, unelected” judges as if they
should be accountable to somebody, but in fact they
are there to uphold the rule of law.
Q120 Lord Rowlands: That would have been a
standard reply in any age. Do you not think that the
change in environment and the way in which the
judiciary are playing their new role in human rights
legislation and so forth does raise the issue of
accountability?
Ms Dyer: I do not think it makes it any diVerent. I
suppose they could be asked questions but they
would be bound to give you fairly anodyne answers
because if they strayed into areas where they gave
their opinions on issues then they would be in danger
of being taken oV cases because of apparent bias, as
happenedtoLordSteynintheBelmarshcasebecause
he had previously expressed a view on an issue in
the case.
Ms Gibb: The only area I can see now where they are
going to be increasingly accountable—I do not think
it is incompatible with independence—is over the
way they are appointed, because of the setting up of
the new Judicial Appointments Commission which
obviously requires annual reports to Parliament and
so on, and the whole method is transparent and open
to public scrutiny. The whole thrust towards a more
diverse judiciary is another factor which should
improve public confidence and respect, to come back
to that earlier question. I think it is not incompatible
with being independent; it reinforces it in some ways.
MrRozenberg:Icanseedangers.Nobodywantstogo
downtheroadtotheextentthatyouhaveacandidate
for appointment as, perhaps, Lord Chief Justice
being questioned by this Committee as to his views
and his suitability for appointment as you would see
in the United States. On the other hand, I do not
think there is any harm in the public knowing a little
bit more about the views of the Lord Chief Justice of
the day once he or she has been appointed given that
he has this important role as head of the judiciary, a
role which we do not really understand. We have no
idea how he is exercising that role. I know he has
givenevidencetothisCommitteebutwedonotknow
towhatextentheisinfluencedbyhisoYcials,towhat
extent he works with his oYcials, how much of his
time he spends on administration, what he sees his
role as head of the judiciary as. I think these are
questions that if he does not want to answer from us,
the press, he should certainly answer from a
committee such as yours and we should know a little
bit more about him personally if we think that his
personalviewsandhisphilosophyonlifearegoingto
aVect the way in which he carries out his public
responsibilities.
24
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
6 December 2006
Ms Clare Dyer, Ms Frances Gibb and Mr Joshua Rozenberg
Q121 Lord Rowlands: You actually said earlier on
that you thought they were liberal judges or the
judges were more left wing; you characterised it
yourselves at the beginning. That is picked up
because of individual decisions, but in that sense
judges are entering the political arena in many
respects. By even limiting options government has
they do limit and they do therefore enter political
debate through judgments, therefore is it not
reasonable that they can be criticised? Or is not
reasonable that we should make them more
accountable?
Mr Rozenberg: They would say they are not acting
politically and they would say they cannot answer
back. It is not as clear cut as those answers would
suggest because, in the broader sense, what they are
doing has a political impact and to some extent they
can answer back. However, they are right to say that
they are not politicians and should not be treated as
politicians. Whenever they come into conflict with
politicians—asthelateLordTaylordidwithMichael
HowardwhenhewasHome Secretaryinthe yearsup
to 1997—the judges inevitably come oV second best
because theydo nothavethe politicalskills toengage
with experienced politicians.
Chairman: Iam afraidweare goingto haveto stop in
a moment, but if there is anything that you have not
said that you would like to say—anything burning
but also brief—we would be extremely interested to
hear it. You have covered a lot of ground; maybe we
have covered everything. In that case, could I say on
behalf of the Committee how grateful we are. It has
been a very valuable session; thank you for being so
candid and helpful.
25
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2007
Present
Bledisloe, V
O’Cathain, B
Goodlad, L
Peston, L
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Rowlands, L
(Chairman)
Smith of Clifton, L
Lyell of Markyate
Windlesham, L
Morris of Aberavon, L
Woolf, L
Examination of Witnesses
Witness: Mr Charles Clarke, a Member of the House of Commons, examined.
Q122 Chairman: Good morning and welcome.
Thank you very much for coming; it is much
appreciated. Could I say that these proceedings will
be televised and perhaps I could invite you, Mr
Clarke, to say, for the record, who you are?
MrClarke:MynameisCharlesClarke.IamMember
of Parliament for Norwich South. I have served in
government in various capacities, most recently as
Home Secretary.
Q123 Chairman: We know you have an opening
statement because we have copies of it. I think most
members of the Committee have had time to read it
quickly but if you would like to repeat part or all of
it you would be extremely welcome.
Mr Clarke: Thank you very much, Lord Holme, I
appreciate that. Can I firstly say how pleased I am
that the Select Committee is holding this short
inquiryandIamhonouredthatyouhaveaskedmeto
give evidence to it. My deep concern—which I have
expressedpreviously—isthatthecurrentrelationship
betweenthe executive,legislature and judiciary is not
as it should be and that tensions between them could
seriously erode public confidence in the ability of the
State to uphold the rule of law in practice. Too
frequently there are very public contradictory
judgments by senior ministers, police and judges
which give rise to confusion and a lack of confidence
both within the criminal justice system and in the
public. I do want to make it clear that I have the very
highest regard for the two Lord Chief Justices with
whom I worked as Home Secretary, Harry Woolf
and then Nick Phillips. I believe that we had cordial
and constructive personal and working relationships
and both maintain the highest levels of personal and
professional integrity. No concern which I express
implies any criticism of them or of our relationships.
I particularly want to emphasise that. The impact of
the Human Rights Act, which I strongly support, is
generally positive. However its operation sometimes
appears to place the human rights of a suspected
criminal ahead of the rights of those threatened by
that criminality, the wider needs of the society or the
consequences for society of any particular decision.
AgoodrecentexampleofthelastistheAppealCourt
judgments upon the cases of the Afghan hijackers
which successive home secretaries, including myself,
have regarded as a tacit invitation to terrorist
hijackers. The underlying cause of the problem is
straightforward. It is that guilt for a criminal act can
onlybeprovedaftertheacthasbeencommitted.This
means that arguments around the definition of
intent, and how to prove it indisputably, become
central. In such circumstances protection of the
rights and liberty of a suspected prospective criminal
often seem to take higher priority than dealing with
the prospective criminal act however horrific. And,
particularly since 9/11, the threats of terrible crimes
have been shown to be real, notably in the case of the
suicide attacks on July 7, 2005. Other threats have
existed, and I have no doubt continue to exist, and
these give rise to wholly understandable public
concern. The huge pressure on the police and
intelligence services to prevent such attacks before
they happen requires a varietyof techniques,some of
which are criticised as an aVront to basic civil
liberties, not least in Parliament, and in this House.
This is of course a legal minefield and a good recent
illustration is the Appeal Court judgment handed
downon1Augustlastyear,2006,thedetailsofwhich
I have given you. This case essentially covered the
extent to which the conditions set in a control order
made by the Home Secretary amount to deprivation
of liberty under the European Convention on
Human Rights. The relevant legislation was the
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which I took
through Parliament, and had been necessitated by a
Law Lords judgment, handed down the day after I
became Home Secretary, which declared that
previous legislationto controlsome peoplesuspected
of potential terroristattacks to be unlawful in certain
respects. This Act was exhaustively debated in
Parliament, not least by many members of this
Committee over a period of months with the active
engagement of many highly distinguished lawyers,
and had been the subject of historic all-night sittings
as Lords and Commons took diVerent views. Once
the Bill was enacted I, as Home Secretary, made
26
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
certain control orders with the benefit of the highest
qualitylegaladvicefromHome OYcelawyers.These
were the orders that were then overturned at least in
part by the Appeal Court, meeting commendably—
and I would say unusually—quickly after the initial
decision. Moreover their judgment at paragraphs 27
and 28 of the judgment rejected the suggestion that
theCourtitselfmodifyordirecttheSecretaryofState
to modify, the terms of the orders in order to make it
comply with the Appeal Courts interpretation of the
European Convention. The Court stated that the
Secretary of State has (and I quote from the
judgment): “the power, should he decide, in the
absence of a derogation order, to make new control
orders....IftheSecretaryofStatedecidestoexercise
this power, he will have to devise a new package of
obligations imposing controls on the respondents.
This is an exercise that the Secretary of State is very
much better placed to perform than the Court.” I
found this aspect of the judgment incredible. After
the most intense Parliamentary discussions, followed
by the Home Secretary’s decision taken on the basis
of detailed legal advice, and then a series of legal
actions up to the Court of Appeal, the Home
Secretary is then simply asked to take another stab
with no guidance whatsoever as to how the highest
Courtswouldviewthelegalityofhiscomplicatedand
diYcult decisions. In fact the Home Secretary then
imposed new control orders and then on 15
September last year petitioned for leave to appeal
against this Appeal Court judgment. Four months
later we await the Lords decision on this petition.
More than five years after 9/11 the legal and
Parliamentary circus still moves on. I maintain that
this is a ludicrous way of proceeding which
dangerously undermines confidence in every aspect
of the police and criminal justice system, at a time
when the public first and foremost seeks protection
against terrorist threats. I therefore argue that it is
vital for the three constitutional arms—executive,
legislature and judiciary—to discuss the best way to
act in the circumstances. Such decisions should look
for practical means of reaching a better process of
decision on these matters and should not address
individual legal cases. One possible outcome of such
discussions might be to agree a process whereby the
senior judiciary gives a formal opinion upon the
extentto which proposals forlegislation complywith
the European Convention before Parliament debates
the Bill, rather than possibly years later. I do not
accept that the practical meaning of “upholding the
rule of law” and its impact on the security of our
society can be resolved only by the most senior
judiciary, the Law Lords. As the Appeal Court
judgment I mentioned earlier makes clear, the
judiciary bears not the slightest responsibility for
protecting the public, and sometimes seems utterly
unaware of the implications of theirdecisions for our
security. I regard it as disgraceful that no Law Lord
is prepared to discuss in any forum with the Home
Secretaryofthedaytheissuesofprincipleinvolvedin
these matters. The idea that their independence
would be corrupted by such discussions is risible. In
contrast as Home Secretary I was able usefully to
discuss these matters with Mr Luzius Wildhaber, the
Swiss President of the European Court of Human
Rightsinawaywhichcouldnotprejudicethehearing
of any individual case. I strongly believe that the
attitude of the Law Lords has to change. It fuels the
dangerously confused and ill informed debate which
challenges Britain’s adherence to the European
Convention on Human Rights. It is now time for the
senior judiciaryto engageinaserious andconsidered
debate about how best legally to confront terrorism
in modern circumstances. Thank you for the chance
of making that opening statement.
Chairman: Thank you for that very clear and very
trenchant evidence which is an excellent way to start
our discussion this morning. Lord Woolf?
Q124 Lord Woolf: I find myself in a somewhat
embarrassing position. I am very grateful to Mr
Clarke for the generous remark he made about our
personalrelationshipwhenIwasChiefJusticeandhe
was Home Secretary. However, we did have
conversations, as he makes clear, and I would be
anxioustotrytoelicitaratherdiVerentreactionfrom
Mr Clarke because I think what he has said
misunderstands the position of the Law Lords.
However, having regard to the fact that we had had
these
personal
conversations
which
were
confidential, I feel I would only do so if Mr Clarke is
happy that I should do so.
Mr Clarke: I am very happy for that.
Chairman: Would you like to intervene at some
point?
Lord Woolf: If I may, yes.
Q125 Chairman: Thank you for that. Could I start
with the specific suggestion you have made about the
senior judiciary signing oV, as it were, on bills in
terms of their compliance with the European
Convention at a time before parliamentary debate
rather than years later? This assumes, of course, that
the judiciary are dealing with the principle of
legislation rather than with the practical eVects.
Could you just explain how you think that might
work?
MrClarke:TheveryrealdiYcultythatisfacedisthat
at the moment the Secretary of State has to give a
certificate to Parliament on the basis of advice from
his or her lawyers about the compliance or otherwise
of a particular piece of legislation with the European
Convention on Human Rights. I did that on a
number of occasions. To be candid, I was both
confident in the statement I was making but I was
27
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
alsodoing itonthe basisof thelegal adviceIreceived
from the Home OYce lawyers. If necessary the
Attorney General could be involved in giving further
advice on that if that was thought to be advisable; it
happened in some cases but not in others. The
convention was that the essence of that advice could
not be made public, even to Parliament. Indeed, the
fact of that lack of publicity about that was a cause
of parliamentary debate on a number of diVerent
occasions. We have a state of aVairs where that was
done. We then have the whole debate through
Parliament with controversy about whether the
Secretary of State’s certificate was or was not valid
taking a long period of time. Then you get at a later
juncture to a series of legal judgments based on the
accuracy or otherwise of the Secretary of State’s
statement about compliance with the European
courts. So you can have a process of literally years
goingpastbeforeahighercourtmakesajudgmenton
whether or not the Secretary of State’s certificate is
correct. How could this be changed, because it seems
to me a ludicrous state of aVairs if you go through an
enormous parliamentary process with the most
distinguished lawyers in the land—mostly in this
House—debating this question and then there is a
judgment made that a particular certificate was not
compliant. It seems to me the best way to do it would
beforaseniorcommitteeof LawLordstomaketheir
judgment on the Secretary of State’s certificate right
at the outset. This would be a massive constitutional
departure of course because it would immediately
introduce the judiciary into the legislative process in
somesense.Iarguethatthatistheconsequenceofthe
passage of the Human Rights Act and the
consequence of the fact that the Law Lords do take
decisions on these matters and it would be better to
do it expeditiously right at the very outset so if there
were doubt that the Secretary of State’s certificate
were correct amongst the highest lawyers in the land,
that would be made clear at the outset before the
whole of the parliamentary process rather than
subsequently. Others may contradict me on this, but
I think I am right in saying that the current feeling in
theseniorjudiciaryisthattheyshouldnotparticipate
in Lords’ debates on particular pieces of legislation
generally if there is any risk of them being seen to be
partisan or drawn into controversy about how the
legislation might go. I quite understand that. It
relatestooneofyour questionsaboutmembershipof
the House of Lords senior judiciary. However, it
seems to me that it is ridiculous to suggest that the
senior Law Lords do not have a part to play in this
approachandIthinkthatthekindofstylethatIhave
suggested might help us better.
Q126 Chairman: So the legal advice you were
describing that you had as Home Secretary was in
respectof section 19, Iimagine,of the HumanRights
Actwhichmeansthatyouhavetomakeadeclaration
as minister that the legislation is human rights
compliant, as it were.
Mr Clarke: That is correct.
Q127 Chairman: I suppose one could anticipate that
one possible problem with your formulation is that
you might get a diVerent judgment from this panel,
whoever they are, of Law Lords than that of your
lawyers who have given you the advice and
presumably potentially including the Attorney
General that the legislation is human rights
compliant.
Mr Clarke: Absolutely, but I would say that it is
better to have that right at the outset before
Parliament debates the whole question than going
through the whole process and then precisely the
samethinghappeningatsomepointfurtherdownthe
line where the Law Lords take the view, following
legal process, that the certificate was wrongly issued
in the first place. I think it would be better to have
that right at the outset. Classically these are narrow
mattersofjudgmentandthedefinitionofdeprivation
of liberty to which I have alluded in the opening
statement is a classic case of very narrow judgment.
Some of the Law Lords’ judgments are very tightly
cast; some of the parliamentary judgments are very
tightly cast. People of perfect integrity can take
diVerent views about what this is, but it just seems to
me that getting to a resolution is important because
otherwise you have a scenario that goes on for years
which can only give rise to the view in the country as
a whole that there is a game being played here which
does not play much part in their own concerns about
their own safety and security.
Chairman: I realise of course this is simply a
suggestion and I do not want to spend too long on it,
but we are very fortunate as a Committee not only
having a former Lord Chief Justice but two former
Attorneys-General, and Iwould liketo bring in Lord
Lyell and Lord Morris on this particular suggestion.
Lord Lyell?
Q128 Lord Lyell of Markyate: Good morning, Mr
Clarke. I think you were in the Home OYce at the
time the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
2001 came through and the Football Hooliganism
Bill. I hope it is not unfair to say that actually it was
veryobviousonthefaceoftheFootballHooliganism
Bill—which admittedly came in very quickly—that
the certificate of compliance was mistaken in a large
number of what many lawyers thought were rather
obvious ways and indeed clauses were dropped
almost
within
hours
of
being
challenged
in
Parliament. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security
Act had very grave defects on the human rights front
in relation to lorry drivers, for example, and you will
befamiliarwiththecase.Ideclareaninterestbecause
28
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
I was involved in it. What I sympathise with in your
suggestion is that this would be in addition to either
pre-legislative or early legislative scrutiny, but you
will recognise the very great diYculty, given very
proper separation of powers—which I sometimes
think is too formalistic—of putting those who are
actually going to have to judge the cases into a
position of taking an active part in the exact
formulation of legislation. Might what you seek to
achieve be done by perhaps making available the
Home OYce’s advice to a committee of, say, retired
Law Lords, professors, former attorney generals and
legal practitioners expert in the area who could give
guidance at an early stage as to pitfalls which
sometimes can become obvious or only too obvious
later?
Mr Clarke: Lord Lyell, we have crossed swords on
the floor of the House and in committee on many
occasions during those moments and I am entirely
familiar with what you say. You are quite right that
there was controversy about whether the statements
oftheSecretaryofStatewerecorrectornot.Theonly
doubt—and it is a serious doubt—that I would have
with your particular suggestion is that what you are
actually suggesting is another group of people who
are eminent lawyers by some description or another
to advise the Home Secretary along with the legal
team he already has. I have no objection to that in
principle, but I do not think it would actually add to
or solve the situation since by definition those people
would not have any greater authority really than
HomeOYce lawyersin thatsituation. Where youare
rightinyourcriticismofwhatIsaid,ofcourse,isthat
it does draw the senior judiciary into a possibly
compromisedposition inrelation to individual cases.
I understand the point that you are making in that
regardanditisaveryseriousone.However,mypoint
is this: trying to continue to say that you have a total
separationbetweenparticularlytheexecutiveandthe
judiciary—but
even
executive,
legislature
and
judiciary—inthecircumstancesoftheHumanRights
Act where judgments are being made does not seem
tomeentirelysustainable.Iwentthroughtheprocess
in my own mind—this may seem to you to be
appalling—when I was Home Secretary that if I was
directed by the courts to carry through decisions on
the Afghan hijackers which I was absolutely not
preparedtodo,wouldIdoit?Andwhatwouldbethe
implicationsifIdidnotdoit?WasIobligedas Home
Secretary to carry out a judicial ruling or not? This is
a very diYcult question. The honest answer is “Yes”,
but if the answer is that I am, as Home Secretary,
obliged to carry out a judicial ruling, however
despicableIthinkitisandhoweverdangerousIthink
it is for the future security of the country, and I am
the one who stands in Parliament dealing with that
situation, is that an acceptable state of aVairs?
ActuallyIdonotthinkitis.Ontheotherhand,ifyou
give authority to somebody else to carry out the
judicial ruling of the Law Lords on, say, the Afghan
hijackers case, who would that person be? How
would the power of the executive be carried through?
I say that these are all consequences of the passage of
theHumanRightsActwhich,asIsay,Ivotedforand
I welcome and I support, but we should face up to
them and that does mean a degree of compromise on
theseparationofpowersinthewaythatIthinkneeds
to be done. I do not advocate my particular small
proposalinthisasasolution;itmaywellbethatthere
are better ways of doing it than what I have
suggested. The reason why I focus so strongly on the
need to haveproper discussionabout these matters is
that I do not think there is proper discussion. I think
the stance taken by executive, legislature and
judiciary on this is not working towards the common
goal of establishing a system which works well and
smoothly and harmoniously.
Q129 Lord Morris of Aberavon: I sympathise with
you, Mr Clarke, in your concern for uncertainty. My
recollection is that the ministerial certificate of the
compliance of legislation with the Human Rights
Act, the aim of that was to ensure that there would
not be uncertainty. Obviously your lawyers—I have
the utmost respect for them, I know many of them
individually—sometimes get it wrong and they have
beengettingitwrongintheHomeOYcefromtimeto
time from Michael Howard’s days down and maybe
earlier. Are there not practical diYculties here if you
have a panel looking at these matters? As you have
said, judgments are frequently on a narrow basis
dealing with the facts. Here they would be asked to
opine on the hypothetical. Are there not diYculties
there?Secondly,wouldtherenotbediYcultiesinthat
they
would
be
debarred
subsequently
from
considering the matter in their formal judicial
capacity and you might get one answer from one set
of eminent Law Lords and another answer from
another set in the same way as your lawyers have got
it wrong so far as the court is concerned?
MrClarke:Thatisfascinating.Thankyouverymuch
for that, Lord Morris. In one case diVerent lawyers
take diVerent positions; in other cases the Home
OYce lawyers get it wrong. I do not think that is the
case. I think all of these people—Home OYce
lawyers, Law Lords—take their diVerent positions
on the issues and to say that one of them is right (in
quotation marks) is only true in the sense that there
is a final court which makes a final decision, but it
does notmean thatthe earlier judgments made either
by lower courts or by particular lawyers advising the
Home Secretary or by the Attorney General or
whoever are necessarily in some sense wrong; it just
means they have made a diVerent judgment on the
issuesthatweretherebeforegettingtothefinalcourt.
Judgments have to be made and I would say that the
29
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
earlier you get to a final judgment the better it is for
good governance. I say that provisional judgment at
the beginning with the Home Secretary and then
going through the Commons debate, the Lords
debate and then tested through various processes of
the hierarchy of the courts is not a very good way of
doing that on these kinds of questions. The reason I
gave the example I did in the opening statement is
that this question of what is the deprivation of
liberty—what is meant by deprivation of liberty
when you are talking about a control order in the
context of the European Convention—is obviously a
veryseriousquestion andone whichoccupiedalotof
time. However, at the end of the day, I think saying
there is a right or wrong judgment about what adds
up to a deprivation of liberty is diYcult and that is
why I highlighted the paragraph in the Appeal Court
judgment which said that this is an exercise that the
Secretary of State is very much better placed to
perform than the court precisely because there is not
anabsoluteanswerofwhatisadeprivationofliberty.
What I am saying is that it is better to get to a final
judgment of this, of what will be legally sticking,
insofar as you can achieve it as early as possible and
as directly as possible. That is what I think you can
do. On the debarring point, I do think that is a point
of substance and a substantial criticism of what I
propose. I do not know whether some device
somewhere between what Lord Lyell has said and
what you have said, Lord Morris, and what I have
said might be possible whereby there was some
judicial committee of some kind which was made up
of very, very senior lawyers indeed but people who
are not actually current Law Lords or something of
that kind, but whose decisions would, by hypothesis,
be given great weight by the Law Lords when a
judgment on a particular case arose. That is why I
argue for some kind of process of discussion of these
questions because it may well be that the debarring
issuerulesout,asitwere,whatIparticularlypropose,
but I am certain that getting to an early decision in
front of the country as to what the law is on these
matters is a much higher priority than simply
allowing due process to go on for often years in an
unsatisfactory and unconcluded way.
Q130 Lord Morris of Aberavon: What about putting
bells on the ministerial certificate, making it firmer
and stronger.
Mr Clarke: That could be a way of doing it, but there
needs to be some buy-in by the judiciary to the
ministerial certificate, if I can put it like that. If many
senior lawyers regard Home OYce lawyers as
congenitallywrong(Iknowyoudonot,LordMorris,
fromyourinitialremarks,butsomedo)thenitwould
be better to get to a state of aVairs where we were in
adiVerentpositionoftheauthorityofthatministerial
statement from the outset.
Chairman: We have a lot of questions we want to ask
you in a relatively limited period of time so I am just
going to take two more quick questions from Lord
Peston and Lord Bledisloe on the specific suggestion
which I do not want to labour to death because, as I
say, it is only one part of your submission.
Q131 Lord Peston: All I am looking for is a little bit
of clarification because looking at your statement
and what you have since talked about you seem to be
discussing two diVerent things at the same time. One
isthegeneralprincipleorthegeneralquestion:“Does
this piece of legislation comply with the European
Convention et cetera?” and it seems to me that you,
as Home Secretary, can do nothing but go with what
yourlawyerstellyouandyoucantellParliamentthat
and then Parliament proceeds on that basis. It may
well be you need better lawyers to help you. That is
the general question, but your actual concern,
listening to you and looking at your opening
statement, does not really seem to be about the
general question, it is about the application of the
general scene in the specific case. That is what is
troubling you, am I not right? Whatever we do it
seems to me in a specific case the courts can come up
with an answer that the Home Secretary does not
like.
Mr Clarke: Of course, and I accept that completely,
LordPeston. Attheendof thedaythecourts mustbe
independent and must make their judgment on the
situation and may well take decisions which any
given executive or Home Secretary does not like. Of
course that is right. What I disliked strongly when I
was Home Secretary—and dislike strongly now—is
the sense of flailing around in a cloud of diVerent
legal opinions from diVerent people all purporting to
be very senior lawyers, in fact being very senior
lawyers but with very diVerent opinions, and the
diYculty of getting to a firmness of accuracy in that
situation. I do not believe the answer is, quote,
“better Home OYce lawyers” because firstly I think
that the current Home OYce lawyers are a very good
and highly professional team with a strong record of
success.AlsoIdonotseehowyouwouldreallyget to
that in a better way. What I am angry about—which
is reflected in my submission—is the total refusal of
the Law Lords in any way to exchange even a word
onanyofthesematters.LordWoolfmayclarifywhat
their thinking is on these matters, although we have
actually talked about it in private as well. I think it is
disgraceful.
Q132 Lord Peston: You will see that I am talking as
anamateur,buteveniftheLawLordswerewillingto
talk to you early on, surely when it came to a case
beforethemtheywouldhavetostartdenovoanyway,
andifsomeoneputtheirhandupandsaid,“Youtold
ussomethingdiVerentlasttime”,theywillsay,“Well,
30
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
last time was last time and this is this time”. I still do
not see how the problem gets solved.
Mr Clarke: Let me be very clear. I am positively
against, inthe strongest terms, anyidea of anyHome
Secretarytalkingto LawLords—or indeed anyother
lawyers—about particular cases. I think that would
be quite the wrong way to go about it and would
breach a large number of principles. The place for
that is in the courtroom, through the proper
procedures and rules of the court. I am absolutely
clear about that and I have never had any view
diVerentfromthatonany casewhatsoever, including
the cases which I was dealing with immediately we
came in. What I do think, however, is that there are
serious issues of principle here and the issue of the
diYculty of dealing with these matters before a
criminalact hasbeencommitted which would benefit
from serious discussion. I think it is bad that that
serious discussion does not happen. Parliament has a
lot of discussion about it, some of it well informed
and some of it not. As Home Secretary I had
very substantial discussions about it with my
counterparts in other countries trying to deal with
these issues, in the United States and elsewhere,
who faced very similar questions. I would receive
deputations
from
Canadian
parliamentarians,
Australian parliamentarians, all trying to get to
grips with the problem of how we deal with that
with broadly similar approaches, but not with the
senior judiciary in Britain. I just think it is an
extraordinary gap.
Q133 Chairman: I think Lord Bledisloe has had his
point answered so what I would like to do is to move
thequestioning back to some of the largercontextual
issues. The Government of which you were a leading
member introduced the Constitutional Reform Act
and quite explicitly one of the aims was to have
greater separation of powers than has been the case
historically. We now have greater separation of
powers between the executive, the judiciary and
Parliament than we have had hitherto. I suppose the
question is, in the absence of a written or codified
constitution,
do
you
think
there
is
clear
understanding on the part both of the general public
and of decision makers like yourself of what the
respective roles are of the ministers and judges. Do
you think people understand what their respective
parts are in the constitutional process?
Mr Clarke: I think the players—the politicians, the
ministers, the judges and the parliamentarians—
generally do understand the broad roles of the
diVerent categories. I think citizens do not and they
find it very, very confusing when there are rows
taking place between diVerent parts of the system. I
think there is a real doubt, even amongst those who
do understand it, about the extent to which common
goals are shared and what are those common goals
between the diVerent arms of government. I think
that that is where discussion would be beneficial. I
regardeditasmyresponsibilityasHomeSecretaryto
do what I could to try to uphold the basic
constitutional structure of the country and therefore
I would try never—and I think I never did—to
criticise police decisions or CPS decisions or judicial
decisions simply because I thought that if, as Home
Secretary, I started getting into second guessing how
a police operation had gone or how poor judgment
was made I would have the risk of bringing into
disrepute those decisions and, as in most of the cases
we are talking about, my own information would
inevitably be far less than those who were actually
taking the decisions. I thought it was invidious to do
so despite a great deal of pressure, particularly from
the media, in certain circumstances. I think that is
important. I think I was, in taking that decision,
doing the correct thing but slightly overstating the
fact that there was a common purpose because
actually I am not convinced the common purpose
between judiciary, executive and legislature was as
strong as it needed to be.
Q134 Chairman: There does seem to be palpable
tension between at least the executive and the
judiciary.Doyouthinkitispossiblethatyourformer
colleague, John Denham, got it right when he said
that this seemed to be an emerging constitutional
crisis? Do you think that is accurate?
Mr Clarke: In spirit yes. I do not like the word
“crisis”; I do not think it is a very helpful word for
anything because welive througha terrible,dramatic
crisis just about every 24 hours in some way or
another.IwouldnotusethewordcrisisbutIdothink
that if you took a slightly softer word like “tension”
I think there is a constitutional tension which is not
properly resolved and which it would be beneficial to
resolve and leads to demeaning things being said all
overthe place which ought notto besaid,and Ithink
the essence of my position is to face up to this new
situation. This is not something which goes back in
history; the Human Rights Act is a specific construct
of this Government as is, as you say, the
Constitutional Reform Act. Both of them I think are
correct steps. I supported both of them and do
support both of them, but they have consequences.
What I would say is that the consequences of those
forms of legislation just need to be thought through
and worked through in a very specific way.
Q135 Chairman: I suppose what I am pushing you
on a bit is that the logic of separation of powers in
constitutions that have separation of powers as we
now dopartiallyisthattensionisgood; tensionisnot
intrinsically a problem because that is one of the
points of having separation of powers. The issues
whichareaddressedinyouropeningstatementwhich
31
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
you are trying to raise with us—and we much
appreciate it—are issues partly of communication
and partly of mechanisms of dealing with a tension
which I suppose you could argue is constitutionally
appropriate and inevitable.
Mr Clarke: Only up to a point. There are a large
number of mistaken understandings of what the
meaning of the Human Rights Act is for the
operation of particular parts of the state. There are a
lot of examples of this that crop up, sometimes in the
Home OYce, sometimes in local government,
sometimes in the police as various assertions are
made—often inaccurately—about what the Human
Rights Act means for the way in which you conduct
your business in a particular area of life. That leads
to public concern about the way that decisions are
taken on the executive side. I would say that getting
clarity about the legal position on all these things is
very important. Immigration is a classic example.
The whole of the operation of the immigration
system in the past few years has been beset by doubts
about what can or cannot be done about the state in
relation to particular individuals as legal cases are
taken to the highest levels. I do not in any sense say
that those legal cases should not be taken to the
highestlevel,theyshould,butIdosaythatsomekind
of basic common understanding of what the law is is
pretty important.
Q136 Chairman: One of the practical questions
which emerges from this is the extent to which it is
appropriate for there to be discussions and contact
between the government and the judiciary, which is
somethingyouraiseinyour submission.Ihavetosay
that I for one am rather confused about this. In the
most recentspat it wassaid that there wasnot proper
contact between ministers and the judges and you
deplore the fact that Law Lords are not prepared to
discuss issues of principle with you. Lady Scotland
wrote a letter to The Times saying that ministers do
meet the judiciary regularly; there are constructive
meetings which ensure there is a regular dialogue
between them. This is not the regular dialogue you
are talking about; you are talking about sort of
principal summits, are you?
MrClarke:What Ireally think iswith theLord Chief
JusticeandtheHomeSecretary—certainlywithLord
Woolf and with Lord Phillips—there was a regular
exchangeasasituationarosetotalkaboutissuesthat
might arise. Lord Phillips invited me to attend the
Sentencing Guidelines Council at one point to
discuss what they were doing and we had a meeting
with some senior judiciary as well. Not only do I
believe that those contacts were beneficial, I think
they were cordial and positive. None of them
discussed any particular case at all at any time
because it would have been quite wrong to do so, but
I thought it was a perfectly appropriate way of
proceeding and it seems from Baroness Scotland’s
letter that I am sure it is to that type of exchange
which she is referring in the letter you have just cited.
MyparticularpointisabouttheLawLordsexplicitly
with whom there is no exchange of view at all as far
as I am aware and I think that is wrong. I think there
shouldbe aroutinediscussionwhich is moderatedby
the Lord Chief Justice and in my experience that has
worked reasonably well. I do not know how it works
now; I do not know how it worked in the period
before I was doing it. Certainly for my part I have no
complaint to make and I think the two Lord Chief
Justices I dealt with were both principled and had
integrity but were also open-minded to discussing
what needed to be discussed.
Q137 Chairman: The debate you called for in your
own Evening Standard article last summer involving
the senior judiciary about how best to legally
confrontterrorismandsoon,inaperfectworld,were
you able to write the scenario that you believe would
work, how could such a debate happen?
Mr Clarke: I think it could be either informal or
formal; either in a room like this or even informally
at social occasions and so on (but I would prefer it to
be formal). It should be with an agenda about the
issues of the day in a general way. I was frequently
invited to dinners at the Inns of Court where I was
told thatif Iwas nice enough to wear the appropriate
white tie and clothing I would be able to meet a Law
Lord and touch his hem and discuss matters if I
behaved myself appropriately. I decided not to take
upanyofthoseveryniceinvitationsbecauseIdidnot
think that met what I was talking about. What I was
talking about was a substantive discussion about
these very, very important issues. I think they have
taken on a much greater significance since 9/11 and
then 7/7 because people are very, very exercised
about whether or not we are preventing these crimes
eVectively. There have been calls—Michael Howard
made a call at one point—for us to leave the
European Convention on Human Rights. Serious
politicians have made those calls. I said to the
President of the European Court, the Swiss judge,
that I thought that was a very serious issue and I
know he very much appreciated the work that Lord
WoolfwasdoingfortheEuropeanCourtonprecisely
those matters. I said that you could end up with a
state of aVairswhere weend upleaving the European
Convention as a result of public pressure. I believe
that very seriously; I think it is completely
underestimated as a possibility. I can easily see it
being something thathappens because if the court, in
upholding human rights, is not seen to protect the
public, then the public will say “No thanks”.
32
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
Q138 Lord Rowlands: You have repeatedly said to
us “the consequences of the Human Rights Act”,
when that Act was being prepared and developed
within Whitehall and between ministers, were any of
these consequences anticipated? Were any of them
thought through or was it a question of surprise?
Mr Clarke: I do not think it was a question of
surprise. I was not personally involved in the
discussions around the Human Rights Act; I was
eithernotingovernmentorinEducationatthattime.
I am certain that all of this was thought through at
great length.
Q139 Lord Rowlands: Why does it appear that
everybody is surprised by the consequences?
Mr Clarke: I do not think it is a question of surprise;
I think it is a question that as you pass legislation it
then has to be implemented in the new circumstances
as it comes through. The logical conclusion of saying
that we do not quite know how this relationship will
work out five years down the line is that you do not
do the legislation in the first place and I do not think
that would have been right. There is no doubt in my
view that patriating—if I can put it like that—the
European Convention has been a positive thing for
the operation of the judicial system in this country
andthelegalsystemandhasmadeitmoreeYcientfor
the individual potential petitioners and so on. All of
thathasbeenpositive,butthereareconsequences.To
what extent could those consequences have been
foreseen? I do not think I would have foreseen the
extent of questioning of Secretary of States’
certificates that there has actually been. I certainly
would not have seen the deprivation of liberties as
sharp as they are, and that is a direct consequence of
9/11 which had not happened at the time.
Q140 Lord Rowlands: So it is more 9/11 rather than
perhaps the human rights legislation that has
changed the forum.
Mr Clarke: It is the human rights legislation in the
context of 9/11. I have no doubt that 9/11 has made
an absolutely dramatic impact on all of this. The
legislation which was overthrown the day after I
became Home Secretary was brought in by the then
Home Secretary, David Blunkett, in response to 9/11
and the Prevention of Terrorism Act was then an
attempt to correct that and all the subsequent
terrorism legislation goes back to 9/11. And why?
Whileyou couldlive withthe consequencesof people
preparing crimes if they were not gong to be so
serious and therefore not worrying too much about
how you stop crime if it was not terribly serious, if it
wasblowinguppeopleandpossibleatrocitiesofeven
greater scale than 9/11 the civil societies could not
accept that you did not do your very, very best to
catch the people and stop the people who were
potentially committing those crimes. That is exactly
theterritoryweareinwithcontrolordersandtherest
of it. All of that is a direct consequence of 9/11. I
think it might have been as well after 9/11 for the
senior judiciary and Parliament and the executive to
talk together about how all of us together dealt with
this new environment that had arisen post 9/11.
Q141 Lord Goodlad: Mr Clarke, to what extent do
you think the Human Rights Act has changed the
balance of power between the judiciary, Parliament
and the Government?
MrClarke:Ithinkithasdefinitelyshiftedthebalance
of power towards the judiciary. I think most people
were conscious of that when the Human Rights Act
was passed and most people thought that was by and
large a good thing because the judiciary is generally,
by the country as a whole, held in high regard. I do
not wish to reverse that shift; I think that shift has
happened and I think that shift has, broadly
speaking, been beneficial. What I simply say is that
the consequence of that change in balance of power
is that the judiciary needs to engage itself in some of
the principle discussions about how we operate.
Q142 Lord Goodlad: The Joint Committee on
HumanRights recentlycriticisedwhatitdescribedas
“very senior ministers” for making “unfounded
assertionsabouttheAct”andusingitas“ascapegoat
for administrative failings in their departments”. Do
you think that ministers are doing enough to counter
the so-called myths about the Human Rights Act
which seem to appear fairly regularly in the popular
press?
Mr Clarke: I think they are doing quite a lot to try to
doit, but itis verydiYcult. Ithink the remarkswhich
the Joint Committee made and which you have
quoted relate to the period after I was Home
Secretary rather than the period that I was Home
Secretary. I certainly think that more can be done
publicly but it is more serious than that. What it is is
the uncertainty that many people who have to carry
out decisions at a wide range of diVerent levels have
about how they will or will not succeed in winning
support for their judgments in the courts when they
are challenged as they inevitably are by people who
seektochallengethem,asLordWilsonsaidinapiece
hewroteforthepapersyesterday.IntheHomeOYce
youaredealingwithalargenumberofpeoplewhodo
not want to be compliant with what you do and will
use any technique that they can to try to turn it over,
including a wide range of legal techniques. If there is
uncertaintyaboutthewayinwhichjudgmentswillgo
then people change their conduct to try to protect
themselves against the consequences of being
thought to have behaved illegally. That is why I give
that example in my opening statement that I do. The
HomeSecretaryhastakenadecisionaboutthesenew
control orders but with absolutely no guidance
33
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
whatsoeveras to whether heis behavinglegallyat all.
It is absolutely outrageous. That is the experience
which runs right through the whole of the people
trying to take the decisions in many parts of the
Home OYce. That is why I tried as Home Secretary
to give as much clarity as I could about what the law
was so that then the people who had to operate that
law—thousands of people—knew how to do it in a
correct way, and they did.
Q143 Lord Woolf: There is obviously here a
diVerence of view of what is the proper thing for
judges to do in certain circumstances. Myself and my
successor—and I believe my predecessor—had no
diYcultyindecidingthattherewerethingsthatitwas
absolutelypropertodiscusswiththeHomeSecretary
when they are Chief Justice because chief justices are
responsible for the working of the criminal justice
system as a whole. Do you accept the Law Lords are
in a diVerent situation because they have no
responsibility for the working of the criminal justice
system as a whole except insofar as they have to give
decisions which have an impact on the criminal
justice system?
Mr Clarke: I do accept what you said, Lord Woolf,
but I think the final qualification in what you said is
a very important one. The impact of the decisions of
the Law Lords is absolutely immense as, by the way,
to give a diVerent example, is the impact of the
decisions of the European Court. The Chahal
judgment about terrorism in the European Court is
something which has reverberated throughout our
legal system for a long period of time and the British
Government is now trying to challenge it. The
questionis,cantheLawLordsdistinguishthemselves
from the impact of their judgments? I think that is a
very, very hard and diYcult question.
Q144 Lord Woolf: If I may, Lord Chairman,
through you, probe this a little bit further. What
amountsto detention is atthe heartof thedecision of
the Law Lords which struck down certain decisions
you made as a control order. The Human Rights Act
requires certain steps to be taken if there is going to
be detention. What I am going to suggest to you is
thatitwouldbe obviousto the LawLords.What you
were wanting to ask them about would be very
dependent on the facts of the particular case because
the requirements that you imposed in your control
order can change with every detainee.
Mr Clarke: That is true, but let me put it a slightly
diVerent way, Lord Woolf. My predecessor and then
Istruggledafter9/11withtheissueofwhatdoyoudo
about people who you feel certain are seeking to
commit a terrorist act but you cannot prove it? That
is the core of the issue. Control orders emerged
because of the failure of the previous regime as
judged by the Law Lords to be discriminatory as
between UK and non-UK nationals.
Q145 Lord Woolf: Which in fact over-ruled a
decision of mine to the contrary.
Mr Clarke: I am well aware of that. The point I am
making is that what then happened—I can say from
personal
experience—home
secretaries
(my
predecessorwithwhomIdiscussedthis,mysuccessor
with whom I have discussed it), their legal advisors,
other senior government ministers were thinking the
whole time, how canwe deal withthese people whom
we know to be real threats and keep them under
control legally? The key question is “legally” because
all of us would wish to operate the rule of law. I
remember very well a civil servant coming into my
oYce after the Law Lords’ judgment, the day after I
was appointed, saying that maybe we are going to
have to return to this idea of control orders. People
had plenty of doubts about whether it would be the
most eVective regime. In the last day or so we have
seen some excellent examples of that. That seemed
the onlyalternativegiventheprevious decisionof the
Law Lords to rule out what we were doing. All I am
saying, Lord Woolf, is that some proper discussion
about what might or might not be legal would be a
very helpful thing to do because we have spent five
years since 9/11 without getting to a system that
works.
Q146 Lord Woolf: You are then putting the Law
Lords inaposition wherethey haveadiscussionwith
the Home Secretary behind closed doors as to what
will or will not do and when the case comes before
them with the same issue there are two parties
involved, the persons who are subject to the control
order as well as the Home Secretary and they know
that the judges have been talking behind their backs
without them being present on the very issue which
the Law Lords are going to be deciding. The Law
Lords have the responsibility of being the final
arbiters on law on the particular facts.
MrClarke:Iunderstand,butthentheconsequenceof
that line of thinking is that the Law Lords are, in the
purest sense of the word, utterly irresponsible for the
outcomes of their decisions and for the security of
society. If the Law Lords are prepared to say that is
thecasethenokay,butthatisnothowitseemedmore
generally.
Q147 Lord Woolf: The Law Lords’ responsibility
surely—I think you would accept this—is to be the
final arbiters of the law on particular facts.
Mr Clarke: I am not sure. That is what I was trying
to say about the question of the responsibility to
uphold the rule of law. I think the question of where
does the responsibility lie for upholding the rule of
law in the country is a big, mega, constitutional
34
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
issue—it is actually at the heart of what your
Committee is investigating at the moment—and I
simplysaythatfortheLawLordstosay,“Thatisnot
really much to do with us; all we have to do is look at
any particular case” I think is a bit rich (if I can put
itlikethat).ActuallytheLawLords’judgments,their
outcomes on individual cases, have a massive impact
on the way in which the system then operates
throughout the whole of the rest of the system.
Q148 Lord Woolf: Can I say straight away that I
accept there is a problem; you are quite right to
identifyaproblem. Doyouthink ithelpsto condemn
the Law Lords who are applying the conventional
approach in very strong language, language which
you then extend to the Court of Appeal, when they
are performing the normal role which judges are
required to perform? The Court of Appeal quite
obviously were leaving it open for you to make a
control order because they accepted that you can
have a lawful control order—Parliament has given
the authority—but in order to decide whether it is
lawful or not there have to be two things. First of all
there has to be a control order made and that is the
Home Secretary’s job; secondly, it then has to be
assessed whether he has got it right or wrong.
Mr Clarke: As has been going on for five years with
the Law Lords making a set of judgments about
whethertheHomeSecretarygetsitrightfromtimeto
time. I am critical of the Law Lords, Lord Woolf, it
is quite true. I hope I am not critical of the Appeal
Court; I feel the Appeal Court has behaved
completely correctly.
Q149 Lord Woolf: You are referring to the
particular judgment in the Afghan case.
Mr Clarke: The Afghan case and also the statement
in the Appeal Court judgment that this is an exercise
the Secretary of State is very much better placed to
perform than the court (which I agree with, by the
way). The fact is that the consequence of that is that
the Home Secretary or the state or whatever
government can never
get
it right
in those
circumstances. It simply cannot get it right.
Q150 Lord Woolf: It cannot be sure of getting it
right.
Mr Clarke: All I would say is that governments over
the last five years have utterly failed to get it right in
the eyes of the Law Lords. That is the state of aVairs.
There are Law Lords who have made judgments
which I think are completely incomprehensible, a
very small number of them but they have. The fact is
that I think it is a duty on people who are making
immenselyimportantdecisionsof this kindto engage
in public discussion about the impact of their
decisions.
Q151 Chairman: Of course this discussion assumes
slightly that Parliament is passive between the
executive and the judiciary when in fact Parliament
has spent a lot of time and angst on trying itself to
define what is not just lawful but is appropriate as a
reaction to this. There are three parties to this.
Mr Clarke: Yes, and in particular the House of
Lords, because it has such a high participation of
senior lawyers, is a major participant in that
discussion which is not under the heel of the
government of the day and of course we have seen in
the debate on these matters a great deal of exchange
between both Houses. Lord Woolf is quite right to
rebuke me, I do not wish to go down a course of
advancing a slanging match between various aspects
of the system, but, to be honest, I do not see how one
can get to a proper discussion about this unless one
acknowledges—as I think there is—that there is a
real issue to be addressed. I deplore particular
statements
by
particular
ministers
attacking
particular
judgments
as
I
deplore
particular
statements
by
particular
judges
attacking
government for particular policies. I do not think
that helps. I am not a minister in this I would point
out and I was not the Home Secretary who then re-
issued the control orders in this particular case, and I
would not give evidence in this way were I Home
Secretary. However, I think you asked me to give
evidence as a former Home Secretary from my
observations andIfeelentitled sosay thatin this way
because I think it is important that these issues are
developed.
Chairman: We have a few other questions we would
like to ask in a relatively short time. Baroness
O’Cathain?
Q152 Baroness O’Cathain: In answer to a question
from the Lord Chairman on the Constitutional
ReformActyousaidthatyouwereunderagreatdeal
of pressure from the media. Ministers from time to
time respondpubliclyin thenews mediato particular
judgments. How significant a factor are the media
themselves in determining the decision of a minister
to speak out? Can you describe for us the process by
which a decision is taken to make a public comment
in response to a case?
Mr Clarke: As I say, my practice—andI donot think
Iwillbefoundwronginthisalthoughmyrecollection
may not be perfect—was not to comment on
particular judgments. I thought, as Home Secretary,
I should not comment on particular judgments. I do
notthinkthatitisrighttodoso,asIdidnotcomment
on particular judgments to prosecute or not to
prosecute, or particular police actions or whatever.
In my case the process by which a decision was taken
to make public comments was straightforward
because I sought not to make public comments
despite very substantial pressure from the media on
35
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
many occasions. The current Home Secretary has
made some comments about particular judgments. I
cannot answer your question because I do not know
by what process it happened, nor can I say to what
extent he was influenced by the media in so doing. I
do not think it was the right thing to do and I do not
think he should have done it. Equally, I do not think
the judges’ cases—there was a case in The Times on
Saturday of a judge criticising the Government in
terms of the criminal orders—help the whole process
either. I think there should be a self-denying
ordinance on all parts.
Q153 Baroness O’Cathain: As a supplementary to
that,youdidsaythatpartoftheproblemwasthatthe
greater
public
just
do
not
understand
what
Parliament,theexecutiveandthejudiciaryaredoing,
but do the media help or hinder a greater
understanding of the function of the courts?
Mr Clarke: Fundamentally hinder it, but I qualify
that criticism with this very important point. The
public
concern
about
terrorism
is
real
and
substantial. The public concern about whether
individualsare protected in thepublic againstviolent
criminals or mentally ill criminals or whatever is
absolutely real. I do not think it is at all surprising
that the media should try to illustrate that point, nor
do I think it is unreasonable for them to do so. It is
our obligation to provide protection. These are
exactly the areas where the human rights issues are
very profound. They are exactly the areas where we
need to do better in getting it right in a wide variety
of diVerent ways. When I was Home Secretary there
was a terrible killing that arose as a result of proper
procedures by probation not having been followed
and these are very bad states of aVairs. I think to say
that
the
media
is
behaving
unreasonably
in
highlighting these is not fair; I think the media are
behaving reasonably in doing that. As you put the
question,itiscertainlythecasethatthemediaarenot
explaining well what the whole process is, but it just
illustrates again the point I am trying to make
throughout, that judges operate in the media
spotlight which is eVectively a public spotlight;
politicians
do;
Parliament
does.
In
those
circumstances we would do a lot better to talk about
how we deal with these questions rather than not
doing so.
Q154 Lord Morris of Aberavon: In 2002 Lord Irvine
said that “in a democracy under the rule of law it is
not mature to cheer the judges when a win is secured
and boo them when a loss is suVered”. You know
that parliamentary rules under Erskine May forbid
reflections in debate on the conduct of judges except
by way of substantive motion. How do you reconcile
that with some of the comments that have been
made? Howard, Reid and you, yourself, have said
some rich statements. You have already made the
point this morning that you do not comment on a
particularjudgmentbutletmesingleoutoneofthem.
You have accused judges of not taking proper
consideration of the wider public interest in the fight
against terrorism.Is there ariskthatsustainedpublic
criticism of judges by senior ministers—we had one
by John Reid the other day—will undermine public
confidence in the legal system?
Mr Clarke: Yes, there is, and there is a risk that
sustained judicial criticism of ministerial positions
canundermineconfidenceinpoliticsaswell.Bothare
true. The quote you gave was simply the rephrasing
ofwhatIhavebeensayinghereinsteadoftheEvening
Standard piece. I do not think I have made criticisms
ofparticularjudgments.Iamsubjecttocorrectionon
that, but I do not think I have; I certainly would not
have wished to do so. What I believe—and I believe
it very, very strongly—is that the judiciary has to
acknowledge that it is taking its decisions in the
modern world as well as every other part of the state
anditneedstodothat.Inanswertoyourimplication,
should politicians or ministers in particular not
criticise particular judgments, I would agree, they
should not.
Q155 Chairman: Do you think the Ministerial Code
could be usefully amended to cover this sort of
situation?
Mr Clarke: Not really. What you have here is one
group of people saying that ministers should not
criticise judges and another group of people saying
that judges should not criticise ministers. I do not
thinkthatthatisaveryhelpfulstateof aVairs.Ithink
that getting the codification of this into a better
situationisnottheanswer.Ithinktheansweristoget
a better common understanding of the common
purposes which is upholding the rule of law in this
country. That is what needs to be achieved in my
opinion. The idea that judges are above criticism is
one that I could not go along with. I can go along
with the idea that government ministers should not
criticise judgments but the idea that the judges are a
group of people who are so distinguished and so
eminent and so right and so deep in their knowledge
of British life that they are beyond criticism is one I
just could not go with.
Q156 Chairman: There is a problem with the terms
of trade because ministers are used to the harshest
personal criticism and that comes with the territory.
There is probably a diVerence, is there not, between
criticising decisions and the judiciary and the sort of
knockabout that politicians take for granted?
Mr Clarke: There is, but again I say—and perhaps I
have not been clear enough—the consequence of the
Human Rights Act in the atmosphere (as Lord
Rowlands has highlighted) of post 9/11 events mean
36
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
that it is diYcult in my opinion for the senior judges
simply to stand aside from that overall climate. I
thinkitwouldbebetteriftherewasanunderstanding
which meant that that did not happen.
Q157 LordSmithofClifton:Followingonfromthat,
Mr Clarke, how do you think section 3 of the
ConstitutionalReformActof2005—whichplacesan
expressstatutorydutyonallministersto“uphold the
continued independence of the judiciary” and on the
Lord Chancellor to “defend that independence” will
aVect the way that ministers approach relations with
the judiciary?
Mr Clarke: I do not think it will change it a lot
because I think that ministers, as far as I am aware,
broadly accept today the terms of the Act which you
just read out and I think they have done over a long
period of time. There may occasionally be deviations
from that of the type that were raised earlier, but
fundamentally
I
think
ministers
accept
the
independence of the judiciary in the ways you have
just set it out.
Q158 Lord Smith of Clifton: When you were Home
Secretary what advice did you seek or receive from
the Lord Chancellor about making public comment
on particular judgments or the role of the courts in
general? How well did these arrangements work, and
how could they be improved?
Mr Clarke: I did not because it was my practice not
to seek to make comment on particular judgments
and so the issue did not arise. I had a good
relationshipwiththeLordChancellorandweusedto
talk about a lot of things generally. I think that was
as it should be. I suppose, if there were a practice to
emerge—which is implied by the questions you have
been asking—that ministers did make comments on
individual judgments, some kind of procedure and
protocol of relations between diVerent government
departments would need to evolve, but I think it
would be better not to go down that course by
discouraging comments on particular judgments
rather than establishing protocols for the way in
which such comments should be made.
Q159 LordLyellofMarkyate:CanIjustsaythatthe
fact that you did not comment was very refreshing.
DoyouthinkthattheremovaloftheLawLordsfrom
Parliament which is going to come in October 2009,
when the new Supreme Court starts work, will help
or hinder relations between the judiciary, Parliament
and Government?
Mr Clarke: I do not think it will change it. I am not
a student of the history of this aspect of things, but I
assumethatatsomepointinthepastthemembership
of the House of Lords of the Law Lords was actually
anactiveandvitalthinginthesensethatdebatestook
place in Parliament in which the Law Lords
participated. In my recent experience—I am sure
Lord Woolf can put me straight on this—the general
disposition of the Law Lords was not to use their
positiontocommentonlegislationthatwentthrough
for the reasons that have been argued here and so to
formalise that, as this change will do, I do not think
will change things verysubstantially. It was irritating
to me when I was Home Secretary that former Law
Lords—IrecallLordAcknerwhenhewasalivedoing
this—commenteda lot withgreat apparentauthority
on what the Government was doing in these areas as
a very senior former Law Lord, but I do not think
thatwillbechangedbythisparticularaspect.Idonot
think this change will actually change very much
becauseIthinkcurrentpracticehasbeen—againIam
open to correction on this—that Law Lords do not
really participate in the debate very much and I
cannot see this changing in any great direction.
Q160 Lord Lyell of Markyate: You may be right in
that the eVect of the Convention on Human Rights
has caused judges to play much less part in
Parliament, which personally I regret. Do you agree
with me that actually there was a very considerable
strength in the Law Lords’ position being in
Parliament and that they knew very well the limits of
what they should not do when they took part in
legislationandthatwemaylosesomethingwhenthey
go and that we have great benefit, for example, by
retired Law Lords taking an active part?
Mr Clarke: In principle yes, but in practice I have my
doubts ontwo grounds.Lawyersare notquite as bad
as economists but they are nearly as such. You get a
very great range of very distinguished lawyers giving
completely diVerent and contradictory opinions on
points with a great wealth of history. For the non-
lawyer to observe it with interest is not necessarily
clarifying. I am not certain that it is possible to get to
astateofaVairswithsuperiorwisdomcomingtobear
onthese matters.SecondlyIthink preciselywhatyou
said,Lord Lyell,reinforces thecaseIammakingthat
there needs to be some forum where there is proper
discussion of some of these issues. That may not be
the House of Lords and I think it is open to question
whether the House of Lords would have been a good
forum for that, but there needs to be some forum for
exchange and to that extent I agree. I know that you,
yourself, are doubtful about some of the ways in
which the European Union has operated and indeed
the Council of Europe in some of these cases and the
impact it has had upon our life in this country.
However, we are members of the European Union,
we are members of the Council of Europe, we live
under the European Convention on Human Rights,
we have done for a considerable period of time now.
I do not anticipate that changing and therefore we
needtofindsomearrangementswhichfittheworldin
which that is a reality. Whether that is a proper
37
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
17 January 2007
Mr Charles Clarke
debate, to be honest I do not have a very good
proposition as to what that should be, but I think we
should be trying to edge towards a greater common
understanding
between
the
diVerent
arms
of
government
about
how
we
operate
in
these
circumstances.
Q161 Lord Woolf: My last question goes back to
whatwehavebeendiscussing beforeinthisway.You
are suggesting there should be informal methods of
communication between the Law Lords and the
executive which work better than they do at present.
However, do you think that Parliament could play a
role by establishing new constitutional arrangements
to provide better channels of communication
between the judiciary and the executive? It is a
diVerent constitutional set up but in France there is
a process where legislation comes before the Conseil
d’Etat before it is passed and the Conseil d’Etat,
which is in many respects the final arbiter like our
Law Lords, then gives a decision although later on it
can come to a diVerent decision.
Mr Clarke: I am aware of the French example and I
think it is quite interesting. Obviously France has a
completely diVerent legal system and so on but
neverthelessIthink thereare someinteresting points.
Justfortheavoidanceofdoubt,Iamnotarguingthat
informal is the only way to proceed. I think there
needs to be a form of exchange of views which could
very well be formal and in answer to Lord Woolf’s
point I certainly can envisage Parliament having a
role in that process that would carry things through
in a special way. Obviously the new parliamentary
committees—the
Joint
Committee
on
Human
Rights, for example—are eVorts to try to take that
forward in a better way. However, it needs to be
evolved in a politically non-partisan way and I think
that is the real problem. I think that because of the
political partisanship about much of this legislation
which I am acutely aware of has been so sharp, it has
madeitdiYcultsometimestogettoabroaderinterest
in all this and I think that that arises here too. My
answerto your question isyes, Parliamentcould play
a major role and I think actually it could well be the
moderator between the executive and the judiciary
which could enable a better set of relationships to be
established.
Q162 Lord Woolf: Parliament requires from various
bodies annual reports which can then be discussed.
Certainly when I was Chief Justice I actually did
produce annual reports on the civil division and the
criminal division of the courts explaining what we
had done. Do you think it would help if there was
something similar from the Law Lords explaining
their position? At the moment you have explained
your views but the Law Lords have no similar forum
to explain their position.
MrClarke:MayIoVerthemoneinmydrawingroom
next week if they would like to take that up? The
answerisyes,Idothinkanannualreportofthatkind
is very helpful. I really do think it is critically
importanttofindsomeframeworkofdebateonthese
matters and annual reports and devices of that kind
are very, very positive proposals.
Q163 Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Clarke,
for exceptionally interesting and forthright evidence.
It has been very helpful to the Committee. We shall
produce atranscriptofyour evidence andif youhave
any second thoughts that you would like to let us
have we would be very grateful. Meanwhile thank
you very much indeed.
Mr Clarke: Thank you very much.
38
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY 2007
Present
Bledisloe, V
O’Cathain, B
Goodlad, L
Peston, L
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Rowlands, L
(Chairman)
Windlesham, L
Lyell of Markyate, L
Woolf, L
Morris of Aberavon, L
Examination of Witnesses
Witness: Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a member of the House, examined.
Q164 Chairman: Good morning, Lord Mackay, we
are most grateful to you. This session is being
televised so I wonder if you would be kind enough,
for the cameras and for the record, just to identify
yourself.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Yes, surely, so far as I can.
My name is Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I was the
Lord Chancellor from 1987 to 1997 and before that I
practised the law in Scotland. I became Lord
Advocate in 1979 and remained in that oYce until
1984. I had previously been the Dean of the Faculty
of Advocates, which was the elected head of the
Scottish Bar, so I had a reasonable experience of the
law before I became Lord Chancellor.
Q165 Chairman: Thank you very much. You are
well aware that this short inquiry which the
Committee is conducting is prompted, in part at
least, not just by the greater separation of powers
consequent on the Constitutional Reform Act, but
also by recent incidents of highly publicised tension
between the Government and the judiciary, and we
aretryingto lookin aslightlymoresystematic wayat
the changes in the constitutional relationships and
howtheycanbestoperate.WhatIwantedtoaskyou,
if I may, is do you think the tensions of the last two
or three years are something new, either in kind or
degree, or do you think from your own experience as
Lord Chancellor in Conservative Governments that
they are systemic, endemic and bound to break out
from time to time?
LordMackayofClashfern:Firstofall,acertaindegree
of tension between the judiciary and the executive is
inevitable and healthy because from time to time the
judiciary are called upon to adjudicate under the
judicial review procedure and in other ways on
actions of the executive, and there are not many
people who completely welcome theiractivities being
judged,particularlyif theyare foundto havefailed—
there are some exceptional individuals maybe, but
generallyspeakingthatisacharacteristic.Thesecond
point is that it depends a little on what is happening.
In the time that I was Lord Chancellor the major
diYculty arose in connection with the then Home
Secretary’s proposals for minimum sentences. As far
as I was concerned, Parliament was entitled to make
such rules if they thought it was advisable, and what
I was concerned to do was to make sure that the
judiciary inparticular cases hadan opportunitytogo
outside these minima if they thought that justice
required it, if there were exceptional circumstances. I
could see the advantage also of people knowing in
advance just what the situation is in relation to
particular crimes and the sentence they might expect,
so as long as the judiciary retained a degree of
discretion to deal with exceptional circumstances, I
did not myself feel that it was in any way
unconstitutional. On the other hand, the very fact
that what was being proposed had in it an element of
restricting judicial discretion provoked a certain
degree of diVerence of opinion between some
members of the judiciary and the Home Secretary,
but I never thought it got to extreme proportions.
The present situation between the judiciary and the
executive is in fact quite a good relationship; I do not
think that, generally speaking, the relationship is in
crisis or anything of that sort. There have been
particular cases in which senior members of the
Government have made adverse comment on
particular judicial acts, particularly sentencing. One
of the reasons for that is that those in charge of large
ministriessuchastheHomeOYcedonotreallyknow
therulesthattheythemselveshavelaiddown,ortheir
predecessors have laid down, through acts of
Parliament and other executive acts. If you actually
lookatthestatutoryprovisionsandtheguidelinesfor
sentencing and so on, you can hardly blame the
Home Secretary for not remembering in detail what
they are because they are extremely complicated and
even those who administer that branch of the law
from day to day find them quite diYcult. The root of
the matter, I think, is a degree of lack of familiarity
withthepoliciesthatthedepartmentyouarethehead
of has been pursuing, and therefore unless you study
it carefully—and you want to come out with some
reaction very quickly, because our modern press
require immediate reaction—you give your oV-the-
cuV reaction without thinking too much. The other
39
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern
thing that has a bearing on this is a general tendency
to lack of respect. As you know, the Prime Minister
has what he refers to as a “respect agenda” which is
intended to restore the respect for authority in the
generality of the population. The lack of respect can
permeate into both individuals of the judiciary and
also into individuals who are in the Cabinet or in
other positions in government. If a senior minister
tookamomenttothinkthatajudgehasreallyhadan
opportunity to consider the case in much more detail
thanheor sheis likely tohave had,theymightbejust
a little slower to comment and, of course, once the
comment comes out the results flow very quickly and
it is very diYcult, once that action has been taken, to
stop the consequences, even with the best will in the
world. My summary is that it varies from time to
time, but the general condition of a degree of tension
is healthy and inevitable.
Q166 Chairman: Just on that last point, I recall that
you,inthepassageoftheConstitutionalReformAct,
had quite a lot of reservations about it, but I imagine
you would acknowledge that part of the intention
was to get a greater degree of separation of powers
between the executive and the judiciary, and I
imagine the logic of that is that some degree of
tensionisconstitutionallyappropriateandnecessary,
otherwise why strive for a greater separation of
powers. Should we accept, quite aside from the sort
of short term secular causes, which you have
identified, that a degree of tension is and should be
built into any system which has somewhat separate
powers?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Yes, that is true. I think
that existed long before the Constitutional Reform
Act and of course, as you say, the Constitutional
Reform Act has sought to formalise to a greater
degreeseparation ofpowers. Isaw thatMrClarke,in
his evidence to you, has complained that he, when he
was Home Secretary, was having diYculty in getting
comment on his proposals from the senior judiciary;
ifyouexcludetheseniorjudiciaryaltogetherfromthe
legislative process, that is not surprising because they
are supposed to stand aside from it, and this is an
example of people responsible for policy not always
appreciating fully all the consequences that might
flow from that policy.
Q167 Chairman: I just wanted, if I may, to pick up
your very interesting reference to the sheer size of the
Home OYce being part of the problem for a Home
Secretarywho mightnot be familiar withevery detail
of sentencing rules, tariVs and so on. Would it follow
from that that you personally would think the
current proposals for breaking the Home OYce into
two more manageable pieces would be a good idea, a
quasi ministry of justice, as we read in the papers;
would you think that is a good idea?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It depends on your
analysisofthereasonsfortheproblemswhichleadto
thisdecision, andthereissomething tobesaid forthe
view that what is the cause of a good number of the
present problems is lack of co-ordination, and if lack
ofco-ordinationistherealproblemthenbreakingthe
edifice into two is only likely to exacerbate that
instead of helping. The problem that I see is the
diYcultyforaministerinreallycomingtotermswith
all the policies that his department is pursuing, but
that is by no meansconfined to the Home OYce. The
Home OYce is an example, but there are other areas
where it is diYcult. On the other hand, that produces
or might produce a degree of reticence about
criticising other people who may be in some way
involved in your department’s activities, or aVected
by them.
Q168 Chairman: On the issue of criticism, ministers
of course are bound to uphold judicial independence
and what the Committee is grappling with is what
limits are there and should there be on ministers
criticising judicial decisions. You mentioned at the
beginning, and I was interested in what you said,
about judges pronouncing on government decisions.
Were you thinking of judicial review there?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Yes, principally judicial
review, but there are other areas where it is necessary
also; for example, they sometimes comment on the
conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is
an agency of government, and the way that cases
have been handled and of course, as you know, other
departments have prosecution rights which can
sometimes raise questions about criticism and so on,
but it is in judicial review primarily that that
tension exists.
Q169 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Lord Mackay,
twenty years ago it was almost unheard of for a
minister to comment in the press upon a court
judgment,letaloneincombativeterms,andyouhave
illustrated that by your comments afew minutesago.
There are classical precedents for not opening your
lips because once the words are released it is very
diYcultorimpossibletorecallthem,butitseemsthat
there has been a sea-change. Erskine May makes it
quite clear that the conduct of a judge cannot be
discussed except on a substantive motion. These
comments are usually in the press; should not the
samerulesapplyinParliamentandoutside,andwhat
do you think are the constraints on conduct, if there
are any other than Erskine May’s? How would you
interpret ministers’ statutory responsibilities under
the 2005 Act to uphold judicial independence? The
Lord Chancellor is specifically mentioned, other
ministers are mentioned; is it the same for all, does it
apply to all ministers, for example, in the Lord
40
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Chancellor’s Department? Do they have the same
duty?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The Lord Chancellor
himself has, as you know, a particular duty, and I
would think that that would apply to all ministers in
his department as a particular responsibility of the
department of which he is the head, but there is a
provision in relation to other ministers also which is
a slightly less prominent type of provision. It is just a
question of a degree of restraint. You may feel
strongly about something and I know that everyone
has experience of that, but on the whole it may be
wiser not to express that until you have had an
opportunity to consider it, and of course in many
cases that ministers feel aggrieved about there is a
right of appeal and there is nothing to prevent them
saying they are proposing to appeal. Basically, the
change may have occurred due to not altogether
realising or respecting the fact that the judges have
had to consider the details of the case in a way that
the ministers will not have had to do, and he or she
will have had the benefit of argument before them
about it and also a fairly close application to—in the
case of sentencing, for example—very, very detailed
regulations.
Q170 Lord Morris of Aberavon: May I ask a follow-
up? Obviously, restraint is a burden that should
apply to a judge; do you see any value in the
suggestion that the Ministerial Code should be
amended to include principles to guide ministerial
reaction? We have the statutory duty in the Lord
Chancellor
and
all
ministers,
and
what
the
Ministerial Code now says in code 1.5 is that there is
“anoverarchingdutyonministerstocomplywiththe
law . . . to uphold the administration of justice . . . ”
et cetera. Would it help if the Code itself, which you
are familiar with, were to be strengthened?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It is certainly for
consideration. I suppose it is a matter ultimately for
the
Prime
Minister,
but
it
is
certainly
for
consideration. I have to say that one of the matters
that you have to keep in mind in a ministerial code,
or indeed in any other code, is that there is a limit to
the power of recall that people have in their daily
work. I do not know that there are many ministers
who would be able to tell you everything that was in
the ministerial code, and of course the bigger it gets
the more diYcult that is. There is a limit to the
eVectivenessofaddingtocodeslikethat;ontheother
hand what you have to do is put in the important
matters, I suppose, and this is quite an important
matter for consideration.
Q171 Chairman: Could I just revert to the other side
of the fence, not ministers commenting on judges but
judges commenting on issues in general? One of your
first acts as Lord Chancellor was to abolish the
Kilmuir rules; I wonder in retrospect whether you
feelthatwastherightthingtodo,andifIcanjustask
a supplementary, we have had evidence earlier in this
inquiry from some leading legal journalists that what
I will call oV-the-record briefing from the judiciary is
ontheincrease,sothattogetaheadline“Judge’sfury
at Government decision”, rather like the political
world now where an awful lot of information seems
to be transmitted by oV-the-record briefings, that
practice is now spreading to the judiciary. I wonder
how to relate those two questions of the ability of
judges to comment in the news media with what we
are toldis the practice of oV-the-recordbriefing. Iam
interested
in
your
opinions,
either
on
the
retrospective wisdom of your decision and/or this
new practice.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: So far as retrospective
wisdom is concerned, if I might take that first, I
remain entirely convinced that it was completely
right toget ridof theKilmuirrules andIsaythat, not
just because I did it but because I think the principles
underlying it are absolutely undeniable. Judges are
supposed to be independent, and independent of the
Lord Chancellor when he was head of the judiciary,
as muchas of anyother judge.The ideathattheLord
Chancellor’s consent should be required before a
judgeisentitledtoexpressaviewtothemediaseemed
to me to be utterly inconsistent with that. I may say
that it happened at my first press conference because
the press asked me about what the basis of the rules
wasandIhadtosaywhatIbelieved wastheposition.
I had some experience of this from the Faculty of
Advocates because it did have at one time a rule
preventing advocatesfromspeaking to the press,and
whenIwasdean wegotrid of thatrulebecauseit was
found to be completely unworkable. Advocates or
judges often have something to say which is of
general importance and,after all, they arein my view
an important section of the community, and why
they should be mute when everybody else can say
what they like I could not see. On the other hand, I
did think that if a person was suYciently fit to be a
judge of the bench in England and Wales he or she
should have suYcient judgment to know when they
should speak and when they should be silent in
matters with the media, so I do not repent of that; I
repentofotherthingsbutnotofthat.Thatwasawise
decision and one that was generally accepted by the
judiciary. At first some people felt they could always
say, if the press rang up, “I am sorry, I have not got
the Lord Chancellor’s permission so I cannot speak
to you”, which was a very interesting defence. On the
other hand, when the Kilmuir rules went they had to
say“Iamsorry,Idonotthinkitisrightformetotalk
aboutthis andthat”soitis aslightly strongerversion
of what was required. Very soon it was generally
accepted that the Kilmuir rules were not based on a
principle that prevailed in the twentieth century. The
41
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern
business of oV-the-record briefings; if I may say I do
not like these in any circumstances whatsoever and
when I became Lord Chancellor I made it clear that
I would not give an oV-the-record briefing to
anybody; if I had something to say that was worth
saying I was prepared to say it and stand by it as
having said it and I was not prepared to give an oV-
the-record briefing. Obviously, if people came to
discuss with me some problem that theyhad, I would
be prepared to have discussions with people, but not
in a way that was a briefing for them to use in their
own newspapers or other media.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Lord Woolf.
Q172 Lord Woolf: I wonder if, through you, My
Lord Chairman, I could just ask Lord Mackay,
because I would be very interested to hear his
response, my practice when Chief Justice—which I
think was in accord with what my predecessors were
doing—was to accept the correctness of the
generalityoftheapproachthatLordMackayhasjust
indicated, but to give advice to judges generally, and
this is now reflected in a type of code of conduct
which they have. As a generality, however, it is not
desirable for the judge to talk about a case which he
has been involved in as a judge and, secondly, he or
she should bear in mind whether it is better that they
leavethematterofmakingcommenttoaseniorjudge
who has got the responsibility of expressing the
views, either as his own or the views of the Judges’
Council. I wondered what Lord Mackay would say
about that sort of approach.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I would think, generally
speaking, that it is quite wrong for a judge to
comment on a case in which he or she has been
involved except in open court.
Q173 Lord Woolf: I meant that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Perhaps a degree of
improvement has taken place in recent years over the
wayinwhichremarksonsentencingorjudgmentsare
formulated in the light of whether the case may be
oneofpublicconcern,becausecertainlywhenwehad
a press oYcer who advised—when I was Lord
Chancellor our press oYcer and the press oYce
advised judges about what should happen in relation
to the media and tried to help them in that
connection—the advicewasthat ifyouknewthe case
was likely to provoke some kind of public concern it
was wise to try to take account of that in the way you
formulated
your
sentencing
remarks
or
your
judgment so that the issue was dealt with in an open
way. It is undesirable for judges to become involved
in discussion of cases in which they themselves have
participated. There may be very, very exceptional
circumstances, but it is not very wise. I am in
agreement with Lord Woolf on that.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Lord Goodlad.
Q174 Lord
Goodlad:
Thank
you,
My
Lord
Chairman. In 2004 you opposed the Government’s
proposals to abolish the oYce of Lord Chancellor.
What degree of confidence do you have in the ability
of the Lord Chancellor Mark II—no longer a judge
or head of the judiciary; perhaps in the future not a
Member of this House or even a lawyer—to defend
judicial independence and the rule of law?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It must depend very much
on the individual and the individual’s capacity and
perhaps loyalties as well. At the moment we have a
lawyer who is also a Member of the House of Lords,
so the position has not been tested—and so far as I
am concerned the longer the test is put oV the
better—of having a person who is neither a Member
of the Lords nor a lawyer. I find it diYcult, for
example, to see how somebody who was not a lawyer
could have dealt with the criticism that was made of
the judge in Wales in the sentence that he
pronounced, because you need to be pretty familiar
withthesituationtodothatandyouneedtobepretty
steepedinthe particularlawandtherules. Ittook the
present Lord Chancellor a little time to respond—I
thinktheLordChiefJusticewasabroadatthetime—
and as I saidearlier the sooner aresponse is made the
better. It is quite diYcult to know how that might be
handled by somebody who was not a lawyer or a
judge.Thereisnodoubtthatthesenewarrangements
have put a greater distance between the Lord
Chancellor, whoever he or she is, and the judiciary
and there is a very good explanation by Baroness
Kennedy of The Shaws in one of the debates on the
Constitutional Reform Act about the eVect that
being appointed Lord Chancellor under the old
system had on a person. There was a very big weight
of responsibility; you were holding an oYce which
had lasted from before the Norman Conquest,
although with changes, and you had a very, very
responsible role in relation to the judiciary. Things
have changed and I just feel that the new Mark II (as
you refer to it) Lord Chancellor is at a greater
distance from the judiciary and therefore is less
sensitive to the concerns of the judiciary, generally
speaking, than otherwise he might be. Let me just
take an example. The present Lord Chancellor, in
opening the debate on the Legal Services Bill, made
a remark about the way that consumers regarded the
Lord Chief Justice. In order to be sure that I have it
right I have brought the sentence with me—this is in
Hansard for 6 December, column 1164—where he
says in relation to the appointment and dismissal of
members of the Legal Services Board: “I have to say
it gives little comfort to consumers, who rightly see
the Lord Chief Justice, who is a man beyond
reproach, as another lawyer in the process.” It is the
word “rightly” that I find rather sad in a way. The
junior minister was tackled about this later on and
soughttoexplainit,butinallfairnesstheexplanation
42
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern
does not give much weight to the word “rightly”
which the Lord Chancellor used. I do not think that
the idea that the Lord Chief Justice is just another
lawyer is a very wise stance to take up, because after
all he is a lawyer, certainly, but he is a judge, and a
pre-eminent judge, in our system. Incidentally, they
say once or twice that he is appointed by the Prime
Minister; technically, that is not correct, the Lord
ChiefJustice is appointedby theQueenon theadvice
of the Prime Minister and it is important to
remember that he is elevated from the ranks of
lawyers into a very, very special position. Most
consumers—certainly
most
that
I
have
come
across—recognise that and have a faith in the Lord
ChiefJustice which, generallyspeaking, is quite high.
Q175 Lord Goodlad: Thank you. Can I ask if you
think that the oYce of Lord Chancellor was
irremediably weakened by the events of the summer
of2003whenthePrimeMinisterremovedtheheadof
the judiciary from oYce in a Cabinet reshuZe?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: That was accompanied
with the idea thatthe oYceof Lord Chancellor could
be terminated overnight, and I have been asked by
manypeoplesincethenhowthatcouldpossiblycome
about, that the Prime Minister’s oYce should issue a
press release which suggestedthat? Ido not know the
answer to that of course, except that obviously they
wereatthetimeactingwithoutlegaladvicewithinthe
Cabinet on the situation, because the outgoing Lord
Chancellor was not consulted about it and of course,
as we know, there was quite a lot of scurrying about
on the next day in relation to the Woolsack. It is
important that the Cabinet should have within it a
member who has legal experience and qualifications.
As you know, the Attorney-General, for good
constitutional reasons, is not a member of the
Cabinet although his advice is available to the
Cabinet, but it is quite important that the Cabinet
should have in its membership somebody who is
familiar with the legal system and with the
requirementsof thejudiciary.Ijust pointoutthatthe
Scottish devolution arrangements put the Lord
Advocate as a member of the Scottish Executive,
which has other points about it, but at least from the
point of view of having legal experience within the
executive it is provided for.
Q176 Lord Rowlands: A rather separate question; I
wonder what assessment you make of the impact of
theHumanRightsActupontherelationshipbetween
courts, Parliament and the Government. Do you see
it as something of a watershed?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It is certainly a very
considerable change, but the actual eVects of it in
result may not have been as great as some people
thought
because,
after
all,
we
were
already
signatories to the Human Rights Convention, which
is the basis of the Human Rights Act, and it is said to
be bringing into this country the human rights
legislation. In a sense that is true and it is possible to
litigate about it here, but the biggest eVect of it is the
increase in the amount of litigation that has taken
place, raising questions in our courts of a human
rights kind, and the actual result—I do not know
whether it hasmade as much diVerence as at first was
thought might happen.
Q177 Lord Rowlands: Do you think it has brought
the judiciary more into political decision-making in
the sense, particularly since 9/11 and all the anti-
terrorism legislation, that the two together have
created diVerent kinds of tensions between the
judiciary and the executive?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Certainly, it may have
made it a bit sharper. As I said, the Human Rights
Act incorporates into our law what was already
something that we were signatories to and which was
being given eVect to in our courts in the sense that it
was possible to interpret legislation in the light of the
Human Rights Convention. It may have made
sharper some of the decisions about, for example,
proposals for dealing with terrorism, and the House
of Lords decision on that is an example of that where
it has come right up against the proposals of the
executive. This was partly what Mr Clarke may have
been referring to when he gave evidence here about
the diYculty of getting the views of judges in
advance. It would be very helpful, I can see, for the
administration to be able to say to the House of
Lords “Now if we did it this way, would that be all
right?” and the House of Lords—I do not know
anything about it, I am not party at all to any of the
deliberations that may have gone on between them,
but I can well see that they might not wish to become
embroiled in that. Of course, as I said earlier, if you
separate out completely the Law Lords and the
judiciary from the legislature, as the Constitutional
Reform Act has done, one of the other consequences
must be that the judges all wish to stand apart from
the formulation of policy, particularly in sensitive
areas—you formulate the policy and then we will
decide.
Q178 Lord Peston: Lord Mackay, you have largely
answered the questions I was going to ask you but,
just to clarify, we have the Lord Chief Justice as now
headofthejudiciaryasaformalmatter,andtheLord
Chancellor has as his explicit role independence. In a
sense they both hold a role in terms of independence;
do you see any room for conflict between them?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Again, that depends a bit
on the relationship of the individuals. I believe that
the attitude of the present Lord Chief Justice is that
the Lord Chancellor will be involved as closely as he
wishes to be in the aVairs of the judiciary to keep the
43
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern
situation as much in his mind as possible. The
leadership roles have now been separated of course
and they are diVerent; the Lord Chief Justice’s
primary role is as a judge, the leading judge of
England and Wales, with an authority as a judge
which goes right across the whole system because he
sits in the civil court and in the criminal court from
time to time, and he is the leading judge, leading the
whole judiciary as far as judging is concerned. The
LordChancellorisnowcompletelyoutofthejudicial
process and therefore his leadership is more of a
political type of leadership and he is primarily
concerned with the Government’s arrangements and
theGovernment lookingto doingwhatheis required
to do to maintain the independence of the judiciary.
When it comes to speaking out, as from time to time
may be required, under the present arrangements if
they are both available they will discuss who is more
appropriatetodothespeaking.Asithappened,when
the Wales case came up, as I said the Lord Chief
JusticewasoutofthecountrybutstillitwastheLord
Chancellor who seemed to be the appropriate person
to speak on that case because it was one of the
ministers who was speaking about the case and also,
incidentally, particularly to do with jurisdiction or
responsibility of the Attorney-General. There is
roomfor the twoandthey aredistinct, and solongas
the personal relationships are reasonable between
them the scope for conflict does not arise.
Q179 Lord Peston: Looking at the speaking out in a
more general sense rather than just about a specific
case, you have got the Lord Chief Justice in his role
and we have this new body which I have to confess I
do not understand at all, what is called the Judicial
Communications OYce—but it does include the
word “communications” which suggests that that
mustbeanimportantpartofitsrole.Doyouyourself
have any view or even any understanding of what
should be going on in terms of explaining to the
media, and what you yourself call the consumer, as it
were, about things like the constitutional role of
judges and the concept of independence—I wonder
whatthatmeans.Doyouseethemashavinganactive
role here?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As I said, the principal job
of the Lord Chief Justice is judgments and it is a
fulltime job and a diYcult one. I had a press oYce
which assisted the judges as and when they needed
assistance,and onthe whole the systemworked quite
reasonably well. That part of the press oYce has
become an oYce of the Lord Chief Justice and their
principal job is to try and ensure that the press
understand the situation in relation to particular
cases and so on; if they can give background that
sometimes helps. So far as the general instruction of
the community is concerned, in relation to the
position of judges and so on, that is primarily the
responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord
ChiefJusticewillnodoubthaveanopportunitywhen
the courts report, within each year, for a general
discussion of the matter, and no doubt a press
conference at that time, but I do not think that the
LordChiefJusticeoughttobeinvolvedindistracting
from his principal role of leading the judiciary in
judgment.
Chairman:Thankyouverymuch.LordWindlesham.
Q180 Lord Windlesham: Let us turn now, Lord
Mackay, to the role of judges in Parliament. Under
theConstitutionalReformActitwouldseemthatthe
judiciary will no longer have the ability to speak on
theflooroftheHouseofLords,andsoraiseconcerns
they may have about Government policies aVecting
the judiciary; instead of this the Lord Chief Justice
may make written representations to Parliament
under section 6 of the Constitutional Reform Act.
MayIaskyou,onwhatsortofissuesdoyouenvisage
that this new procedure should arise?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: There are two matters I
would want to mention. First of all, it has become
much more common now for the judiciary—the
senior judiciary particularly, but not always the
senior judiciary—to come to speak to parliamentary
committees, such as the Home AVairs Select
Committee, and now the Constitutional AVairs
Committee—and Home AVairs is still of importance
in relation to prisons and that kind of thing. I believe
that
the
section
5
representations
would
be
appropriate only for very critical—I do not mean
critical in the sense of finding fault, I mean critical in
the sense of very important—matters; I do not think
itisaprocedurethatIwouldenvisagebeingusedvery
often. It would be something really fundamental, I
think, that one would expect to be raised if that
procedure was to be used. More informal procedures
such as speaking to committees and so on are more
common and more likely to be productive. I, of
course,greatly regret that the senior judiciaryare not
able to speak in the House of Lords; that is a pity. It
is part, as My Lord Chairman said, of the separation
of powers; separation of powers is well in theory but
I doubt whether it always produces the best results in
practice if carried too far, but as Lord Falconer said
yesterday, that is history, Parliament has done this
now. The senior judiciary often contributed very
importantly to debates in Parliament, on matters not
directly aVecting them. For example, I remember a
very interesting and eloquent speech of the late Lord
Wilberforceontheinsuranceprovisionsinrelationto
buildingsandinrelationtothesurveyingofbuildings
by the local authority, and the liability that failure to
survey properly might produce. He was an absolute
master of that area and Parliament is deprived of the
benefit of that. No doubt he could put it in a lecture
or something, but it is not quite the same as a direct
44
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern
address to Parliament. My answer is that section 5 is
only for very dramatic and extremely important
developments,otherwiselessformalcommunication,
particularly with the committees of both Houses, is
important.
Chairman: I want to bring Lord Lyell in but could I
just
ask
you
a
supplementary.
If
written
representations under section 5 are a sort of ultimate
deterrent, were not to be used lightly but for, as you
say, critical issues, the question arises of what sort of
normative patterns of communication are there
ratherthan exceptional.Oneidea which has been put
to the Committee and has found some support from
various witnesses is that the judiciary might produce
an annual report to be laid before Parliament every
year,settingoutactivitiesandissuesofpublicinterest
that they want to put in the public domain, and that
that every year would occasion a Parliamentary
debate and be an opportunity to, as it were, sum up
in a less dramatic way than section 5 written
representations, although itcould be complementary
to it. What would be your reaction to that idea?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My impression is that
there is already a provision for the court reporting
annually; the Court of Appeal has done it for some
time but it is more general now. That is a method of
communication that I would regard as very
appropriate and rather routine, and it is on that
occasion normally that the Lord Chief Justice would
probably give a press conference, explaining the
report and answering any questions that might be
raised about it by the press.
Q181 Lord Lyell of Markyate: Following that up,
Lord Mackay, one of the great strengths, it always
seemed to me, of our constitution was that in a sense
all three arms came together in Parliament—the
executive, the judiciary, the legislature. The previous
Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in a quite
seminal debate in 1996, which you took part in, said:
“I turn to the role of the Law Lords, both sitting and
retired, in your Lordships’ House. Their expertise in
the administration of justice allows them to make an
invaluable contribution to our debates on that
subject.” I would take it that you would agree with
that. At the moment, at least, unless there is some
change, the sitting judges have been pushed out of
Parliament, but for retired Law Lords the position
does not seem to be entirely clear. Would you
encouragethe factthatthey should, when theyretire,
come in and seek to contribute actively to our
debates?
LordMackayofClashfern:Ofcourse,thepositionwill
change in that the members of the Supreme Court
will not be Lords once the new Supreme Court
arrangements come into place, and therefore that
option after that will not be available unless they are
givenpeeragesonretirement.Thatcouldhappen,but
I do not know whether you expect it to happen, I am
not sure. Anyway, unless and until they get a peerage
they will not be able to participate, and that is a pity,
if that is the way it works out. If I may say, I entirely
agree with what Lord Irvine said in that debate and I
would not be surprised if his view on that matter
remained the same in June 2003, which led to the
events of which we know.
Chairman: I am afraid this will have to be the final
question because we have another distinguished
witness, but Lord Bledisloe.
Q182 Viscount Bledisloe: You began by saying that
you are aware of the evidence which Mr Clarke gave
to us last week; can I ask you a bit more about that?
He was suggesting that the senior Law Lords should
be prepared to discuss with him legislative proposals
which he intended to bring forward, and indeed he
wentsofarastosuggestthattheymightgiveaformal
opinion upon their validity before they were enacted.
Indeed, he went so far as to say that it is disgraceful
that a Law Lord is not prepared to discuss with the
Home Secretary of the day the instances of the
principle involved in this matter. What is your view
of the constitutional propriety of a discussion of that
kind as to the validity of a law before it had been
challenged in court?
Lord
Mackay
of
Clashfern:
Under
the
new
arrangements, in eVect putting the Law Lords out of
Parliament—though it has not quite happened yet—
on the basis that it is to happen the consequence of
that is the situation which Mr Clarke found diYcult
or objectionable. On the other hand, it would be
possible because some of the courts in Europe have
the possibility of pronouncing on bills before they
become fully law, but that would require a statutory
provision that would enable a minister to put his bill
before the courts for discussion in the court. One of
the diYculties Mr Clarke may not fully have
appreciated is that a Law Lord sitting in his room in
the House of Lords or elsewhere, presented with Mr
Clarke’s proposals, might see them as quite
reasonable, but he has not heard the full argument
and when somebody comes along with the opposite
argument, his mind may change. After all, I believe
that the essential quality of our judges is their ability
to have an open mind, to decide the case in the light
of the arguments. I was once at a conference with the
then Chief Justice of the United States and the Chief
Justice of Canada, and the subject of judicial
appointments came up.Iventured the opinion,inthe
presenceof thesegentlemen,thatinthe UnitedStates
judges were appointed for their opinions—because
they were examined in great detail in the Senate
Committee—whereas here they were appointed for
their ability to form opinions after they heard the
argument, and I think William Rehnquist was
prepared to accept that. One of the diYculties of Mr
45
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Rt Hon Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Clarke’s proposal in the informal shape of it is just
that, that judges would be forming opinions without
a full argument about it, and that is highly
dangerous. On the other hand, if there was a formal
statutory procedure for ministerial proposals being
put to the courts, say in a draft bill, then argument
would be open and everyone who had an interest in
it would have a chance to state their point of view
before the judges came to a decision.
Examination of Witnesses
Witness: Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a Member of the House, examined.
Q183 Chairman: Lord Lloyd, it is very nice to see
you here and thank you for coming to give your
evidence to the Committee. This will be televised so
would you be kind enough to just identify yourself
for the cameras.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Lord Lloyd of Berwick,
former Law Lord.
Q184 Chairman: Lord Lloyd, you have been kind
enough to supply us with an opening statement. We
have all read it—I checked that before you came—so
would you like briefly to sum up the gist of it for the
Committee?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Yes. It is in many ways early
to say what the ultimate result of the 2005 Act is
goingtobesofarasarrangementsareconcerned.But
one thing which is already apparent is the enormous
additional burden which is now placed, not just on
the Lord Chief Justice but also on other members of
the higher judiciary. I was very interested to hear
what Lord Mackay was saying, that the primary job
of a judge is actually to sit in court. That is the best
way in which they can influence, in the case of the
Lord Chief Justice, the criminal justice system. But
the same applies to the other heads of division, the
Chancellor in the Chancery Division and the
President in the Family Division. What worries me is
thattheburdenonallofthemisnowsohighthatthey
arenotabletositmorethantwoorthreedaysaweek,
some even less. For example, I mentioned the fact
that Lord Justice Leverson, who occupies a very
important position as the Senior Presiding Judge, is
scarcely able to sit at all now. He is a very good
criminal judge but he cannot sit as a criminal judge;
I find that very depressing. In the long run, it may be
very deleterious to judicial appointments because it
mayaVect—Ihaveexplainedthisinthepaper—those
whoarewillingtoacceptthesetoppositions.Thebest
judges may feel they are not very good as
administrators. It is also aVecting recruitment to the
HighCourtbench;thesearethepointsItriedtomake
in my opening.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Lord Mackay; we
are most grateful. There will be a transcript of your
evidence and if you have any seconds thoughts or
things that you would wish to have said, we shall be
extremely grateful to receive them, but as it is could I
thank you very much, it has been very helpful
evidence indeed. Thank you.
Q185 Chairman: As you say, it is somewhat
complementary to the point that Lord Mackay made
tousafewminutesago,thoseofusontheCommittee
who are not lucky enough to be lawyers know that
the phenomenon you are describing applies in many
spheres of life and many professions—one hears the
same thing, that people are brilliant research
scientists and they end up administering gigantic
laboratories, or people are very able architects and
they find themselves chairmen of architectural firms
and associations and so on and so on.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: That is a very good analogy.
Q186 Chairman: It is a phenomenon which is not
unique to any self-governing profession really, is it?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: That is very true, it is a very
good analogy. But the beauty of the old system was
that it was all taken oV the shoulders of the judges by
the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Now, of course,
it is not, because a great deal of the administration is
being transferred to the Lord Chief Justice and his
colleagues. They now have large numbers of civil
servantsundertheirdirectcommand,andIthinkthat
is a great pity.
Q187 Chairman: Point well taken. Are there any
other observations you would care to make on the
way the new arrangements are working other than
the important thing you have just said?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: No, except it is important to
recognise—and this was again recognised by Lord
Mackay—that at the moment relationships between
the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor are
very close and very good and I do not see any sign of
any problem arising in that respect.
Chairman: Lord Bledisloe, did you have a point you
wanted to make?
Q188 Viscount Bledisloe: I just wanted to add a
suggestion to Lord Lloyd’s point about not wanting
to be involved in administration. Would it be fair to
say that whereas architects and other people may
have gone into professions knowing they might have
administrative responsibilities, those who have gone
46
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
to the Bar have gone deliberately to a profession
where there is no administration at all?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: That is a very fair point, and
that puts in one sentence what I have put in two or
three pages in my opening statement. It must not be
overlooked.
Q189 Baroness O’Cathain: The question actually
asked for your observations on how the new
arrangements are working, but is it not true that the
newarrangements arestillnotinplace? Althoughthe
Act was in 2005 it has not been finally introduced.
Does the Lord Chancellor not still oversee the
appointment of High Court judges, or has that
changed recently?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: No, that has changed.
Q190 Baroness O’Cathain: It is totally out of his
hands now.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The Judicial Appointments
Boardisalreadyfunctioning;ithasnotdonealotyet,
as it happens, but it is certainly functioning. That
part is certainly in force.
Baroness O’Cathain: I just thought that the Lord
Chancellor himself actually did say in his evidence
that he would still have a handle on that for another
few months. Am I wrong?
Q191 Chairman: Your recollection is right, the Lord
Chancellor himself told us that there were still some
appointments in which he would continue to be
involved for the next few months.
Lord Lloyd ofBerwick: I do notunderstand how that
can be. But if he said that it must be true.
Q192 Lord Woolf: So far as the Law Lords are
concerned, the Lord Chancellor says that the special
appointments section does not come in until the Law
Lordsmoveout. WehavehadaLawLord appointed
veryrecentlyandhewasappointedbytheoldsystem.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: That, I think, is the
explanation.
Q193 Baroness O’Cathain: I did think it was High
Court judges actually.
LordLloydofBerwick:No,Iamprettysurethatasfar
as High Court judges go the system is already
operating, but I will be corrected if I am wrong.
Q194 Viscount Bledisloe: Can I ask you to remove
my uncertainty? I take your position, Lord Lloyd, as
regards the Law Lords; has the Lord Chancellor, as
I understand it, fully got rid of any responsibility for
nominating other members of the judiciary? I am not
quite clear; I thought there was a gap.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I think he has: that was
certainly one of his objectives, to hand the whole of
that over to the Judicial Appointments Commission
and I thought he had succeeded in doing that.
Q195 Chairman: One thing that is beyond debate is
thatoftheresponsibilitieslefttotheLordChancellor
one
is
this
mighty
but
somewhat
ill-defined
responsibility for the rule of law. It is very interesting
to ask you as a senior judge and lawyer what the rule
of law is in your opinion, over and beyond the
independence
of
the
judiciary.
What
is
his
responsibility, for which he has the political and
public responsibility, not just through history but
now through statute? What is it?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I will attempt to answer that
question, mainly by referring, if you are not already
familiar with it, to a lecture which was given on this
very topic by Lord Bingham. Could I perhaps just
take you up on something you said in asking that
question, which may have suggested that the
responsibilities left to the Lord Chancellor had been
very largely diminished. That is, if I may say so, a
misapprehension.
Q196 Chairman: That was not my intention.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The Lord Chancellor’s
responsibilities are still, in running the courts system,
verylargelyastheywere.Itisonlyinthemorelimited
spheres of not acting as a judge and not being
responsible for judicial appointments that his
responsibilities have been mitigated. On your
question as to the rule of law, I do recommend the
Committee to get hold of a copy if they were not
present at the lecture. If I may be forgiven I cannot
resist mentioning one thing which he says early in his
lectureabouttheacademicviewas towhattheruleof
law is. One academic said: “It may well have become
just
another
one of
those
self-congratulatory
rhetorical devices that grace the public utterances of
Anglo-American politicians. No intellectual eVort
need therefore be wasted on this bit of ruling-class
chatter.” Then a little later he refers to another
academic commenting on theBush v.Gore case in the
Supreme Court who said that the impression is now
recognised that “utterance of those magic words is
little more than ‘Hooray for our side!’.” Having said
that, Lord Bingham does go on to give a very neat
definition of what we mean by “rule of law”: “all
persons and authorities within the state, whether
public or private, should be bound by and entitled to
the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively
promulgated and publicly administered in the
courts.” That is the general statement and he then
breaks that down into eight sub-rules as he calls
them. I will not go through them all at the moment,
but they are all the ones that one might expect and in
47
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
particular, of course, that ministers, like everybody
else, are subject to the ordinary courts.
Chairman: Thank you, it sounds as if the Committee
would be well-rewarded by studying Lord Bingham.
Thank you very much for that, it is very helpful.
Q197 Baroness O’Cathain: How eVectively is the
Lord Chancellor fulfilling his duty to defend the
judiciary and what role do you think the Lord Chief
Justice should play in this regard?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: When one talks about
defending the independence of the judiciary one has
to unpack that to some extent. The independence of
the judiciary arises in two rather separate ways, one
where there is an attempt by the legislature, if you
like, or by Government—to put it more accurately—
to restrict in some way the jurisdiction of the courts.
There the classic example with which we are all
familiar was the recent attempt to oust the
jurisdiction of the courts in the asylum and
immigration field. There, it seems to me, the Lord
Chancellor’s duty is absolute; he must point out in
Cabinet that this would undermine the independence
of the judiciary. He failed, as it happens, in that case,
as we all know. But it was subsequently drawn to the
attention of Parliament in other ways. There is an
entirely separate sense in which the independence of
the judiciary can be attacked—again you discussed
this with Lord Mackay—and that is by ministers
attacking the decisions of individual judges and also,
of course, members of the press attacking the
decision of individual judges. What would worry me
would be if there were some sort of split whereby it
was thought that the Lord Chancellor had to deal
with ministers and that the Lord Chief Justice had to
deal with the press; that would be a great mistake. It
seems to me that the Lord Chancellor still has a duty
in respect of both these matters. No doubt he would
discuss the performance of that duty with the Lord
Chief Justice, but it certainly is his duty to defend the
integrity of the judges, both when attacked by
ministers and when attacked by the press.
Q198 Lord Peston: Just very briefly, to make sure I
understandwhatyouare saying,ifyoutakeaspecific
judgment are you saying that it is unacceptable for
anyoneinpubliclife,whetheraministeroraMember
of this House, to say of a particular judgment “that
makes no sense whatsoever”? Are you saying that
should be ruled out, or are you saying that is
allowable but the defender of this nonsensical
judgment would not be the judge but the Lord
Chancellor? I am not very clear. I have a specific case
in mind which I am not going to mention.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The Sweeney case?
Q199 Lord Peston: Well, if you want to know the
case it was that poker is a game of chance and simply
no-one who knew any mathematics or probabilities
theory or theory of games could possibly come to
that conclusion, and I am sorry, I did not really want
to mentionit butsinceyoupressme mypointis, were
one to write an article and say that, who is to defend
the judge? Since I take it the view is that the judge
himself should not be asked to justify his own—
LordLloydofBerwick:IentirelyagreewithwhatLord
Mackay said about that. I think it is highly
undesirable that judges should be asked to defend
their decisions.
Q200 Lord Peston: I understand that but who
should? Are youtellingusthatthe Lord ChiefJustice
knows,orthattheLordChancellorshouldbetheone
to defend them?
LordLloydofBerwick:Ithinkinpracticeitwouldand
should be done between the two. That is why it is so
important that the relationship between the Lord
Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice should be as
close as I have no doubt it is, and they will discuss it
and they will say which of them is the more
appropriate to deal with it. In general, where the
attack is by a minister, it would be more appropriate
for the Lord Chancellor to do it: it may be more
appropriate in other cases for the Lord Chief Justice
todoit.IthinkifIhadtosayoneortheotherIwould
say primarily the Lord Chancellor. But as long as
somebody does it that is the essential thing, and not
what happened when, as you discussed with the
journalists, there was that gap when the Lord
Chancellor thought the Lord Chief Justice was going
to do it and he did not realise he was in Poland. That
must not happen again.
Chairman: Would you mind if we just skipped back
foramomenttotheruleof law?IthinkLordLyellhas
a supplementary.
Q201 Lord Lyell of Markyate: If I may take my
supplementary here and now, is not really this
problem of interplay between ministers and the
judiciary really a matter of courtesy and reasonable
restraint on both sides? It does not mean that you
cannot say that a judgment is, in your view, very
unwise or to be tested on appeal or to be considered
by Parliament: it is the way you pitch in, and if you
do it with courtesy and explanation that has always
been fine. The problem is that there have been rather
too many occasions over the last X years when that
has not been the case.
LordLloyd of Berwick: Ientirely agree. Of course,it is
open to ministers to say they disagree with
judgments, and generally they will appeal if they can
and if that appeal is lost then they will say, “Well, we
48
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
still do not like it and we may have to consider
legislation”. What I think is intolerable, and I think
this lies behind your question, is a personal attack on
judges because the minister has disagreed with a
particularjudgment. Iamafraid thatdidreachavery
seriouspoint whenMrBlunkettwas HomeSecretary
when he attacked a judge in an article in the Evening
Standard and so on. That is what should not happen.
Q202 Chairman: Do you have the impression there
are more of these ad hominem attacks?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I think they reached a
crescendoduringMrBlunkett’stenureoftheoYceof
Home Secretary. With Mr Clarke I think it was
somewhat better, in fact much better, and one just
does not want to see that happening again. But there
is still obviously a tension.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Lord Goodlad?
Q203 Lord Goodlad: Can I ask Lord Lloyd how
diYcult he thinks it is for the Lord Chief Justice to
represent the diverse views of the judiciary under the
new arrangements?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Yes. The important point to
stress here is that there are very diverse views among
the judiciary. I think Lord Woolf would be the very
first to accept that. Judges all have independent
minds. Very often they do not agree, as we know,
when they are giving judgments. They are unlikely to
agree all the time about the future arrangements in
the administration of justice. So there are clearly
diverse views which will continue to exist. I cannot
seethere isanyrealproblemintheLord ChiefJustice
representing these diverse views. He can say what the
diverse views are. I recall very well a speech made by
Lord Bingham in the House of Lords when he
explained what the views of the judges were—I
cannot remember what it was about, I think it may
havebeen about minimum sentencesor somethingof
that kind—and then to everybody’s surprise he said:
“Well, those are the views of the judges but I actually
think diVerently”. So he can represent the views and
I suppose his job will be to reconcile them so far as
he can.
Q204 Lord Goodlad: Could I ask further, please,
how representative, Lord Lloyd, you think the
Judges’ Council is, and under what circumstances
you think it would be acceptable for judges other
than Lord Chief Justice to criticise government
policy outside the courtroom?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: So far as I know the Judges’
Counciliscompletelyrepresentativebut,again,Lord
Woolf himself would be the best person to give you
evidence on that. Judges are often asked to give their
views about future legislation in the form of
consultation papers. This is perhaps not always
recognised. The circuit judges have done that quite
recently in relation to the proposed changes to the
law of rape. If they are asked to give their opinions
then obviously they must give their own opinions
and, if they happen not to agree with the views of the
government,thentoobad.Iamnervousaboutjudges
expressing too readily their viewsabout publicpolicy
generally. As Lord Woolf said when Lord Mackay
was giving evidence, they must be encouraged to use
as much self-restraint as they can.
Q205 Viscount Bledisloe: I think we are all aware
that you are less than wholeheartedly enthusiastic
about the arrangements for the new Supreme Court
and the removal of the Lords of Appeal from this
House, but what appreciable impact do you think
that will actually have on the constitutional
relationships between the judiciary, Parliament and
the Government?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I think the main one will be,
and I regret this very much, that judges, and in
particular the Lord Chief Justice, will no longer be
able to represent the views of the judges in
Parliament. That has worked well in the past: there
has never been any diYculty with it, and nobody has
been able to think of a satisfactory way of replacing
that role. Section 5 is obviously not going to operate
veryfrequently.Ofcourse,theLordChiefJusticecan
appear before parliamentary committees. But there
was nothing quite like successive Chief Justices being
able to come to the House and explain, for example,
why minimum sentences do not really work, how
they necessarily involve injustice in particular cases.
Three successive Chief Justices expressed their view
in the House. Now they can only do it in lectures or
howeveritmaybe,andthatisnotsatisfactory.Asfor
the Law Lords, let us suppose for a moment the
Constitutional Reform Act had never been passed. I
think there might have been a period during which
for various reasons the Law Lords were not taking a
very active part in the chamber of the House of
Lords. One is that they work very hard and they just
simply do not have the time to take as much interest
in legislative matters as they used to do. But that
might well have passed and I think there would have
been future Law Lords—and perhaps there are some
now—who would have wanted to take part in the
legislative process. They can be a very great help to
theHouseindoingso.LordMackaymentionedLord
Wilberforce but I can name any number of others.
Lord Scarman is a good example of someone who
made agreat contributionto theHouse and there are
many others. SoIthink whenitcomesintooperation
it will have a deleterious eVect on the work which the
House does.
Q206 Viscount Bledisloe: Now that there is an
automatic retiring age for Law Lords do you not
thinkthatthatcanlargelybesolvedbybringingsome
49
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
24 January 2007
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
of the retired Law Lords back into the House in
whatever form the reformed House takes?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I do not think that will work
myself.Oneofthe advantagesof theoldsystem, (and
I am sorry just to defend the old system but you have
asked me why I defend it), was that when a man
became a Law Lord this place was at first quite
strange to him. He might have felt a little shy—and I
can see the Chairman finding that odd! It takes quite
a lot for a Law Lord to take part in the ordinary
business of the House of Lords. It happens generally
through a Law Lord being Chairman of one of the
Committees of which Law Lords have traditionally
been Chairman. Gradually they get to know
members of the House and so on, and that leads on
to their taking a part after they have retired. If they
do not become members of the House of Lords until
after they have retired I can guarantee that none of
them will come. I cannot see why they should.
Chairman: That is a very touching picture of these
shrinkingviolets!Iamafraidthisisgoingtohavetobe
the last question. Lord Rowlands?
Q207 Lord Rowlands: What impact do you think
Human Rights Act has had upon the relationship
betweenthecourts,ParliamentandtheGovernment?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I basically agree with what
Lord Mackay said. There is sometimes a confusion
between the eVect of the Human Rights Act on the
relationship between the courts and Parliament and
the eVect of the European Communities Act way
back in 1972. The only way in which the judges can
overrule, if you like, primary legislation is under
Section 2 of the 1972 Act, on the ground that it is
inconsistent with the Treaty of Rome. Some people
have got, I think, confused between the 1972 Act and
what happens under the Human Rights Act, which is
utterlydiVerent.There isnoabilityundertheHuman
RightsAct for judgesto declareanAct of Parliament
to be unenforceable.
Q208 LordRowlands:But, ineVect,itcanhappen.If
you strike down in this particular case virtually the
whole basis of the legislation, then that is virtually
havingthesameeVectasstriking thestatute,isitnot?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Well, no. In the terrorism
cases—which is what you are thinking about?
Q209 Lord Rowlands: Yes.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick:—that was not so. All they did
was to say that the 2001 Act was incompatible with
the Human Rights Act; that is all they could do. It
wasthenuptoParliamenttodecidewhattodoabout
it. The critical moment was in 2004 when, if the
Secretary of State hadsaid: “Well, Ido not care what
the judges have said, I am going to go on with the
2001 Act”, there really would have been a crisis. But
hedidnot.TheHomeSecretaryacceptedthedecision
of the Law Lords and provided something in its
place.
Q210 Lord Rowlands: So you do not think that the
combination of both the Human Rights Act and the
issues of anti-terrorism legislation has brought the
judges more into the political scene?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Well, it certainly has
highlighted the importance of the function which
they perform, which is to say whether or not any
legislation complies with the Human Rights Act
which, after all, Parliament itself passed. That is all
they can do. In most cases it happens quite easily. I
did ask somebody once how often there has been a
declaration of incompatibility. It is somewhere
between40and50cases.IneverycaseParliamenthas
had no diYculty in adjusting the situation. It is only
when it is in a very high profile case, as it was in
terrorism, that it hits the headlines. Otherwise it
happens, not all that frequently but it does happen,
all the time. And it does not create any problem.
Q211 Lord Rowlands: What doyou think of Charles
Clarke’s view that you should have an opportunity
for getting some sort of advisory view on legislation
before it is passed?
LordLloydofBerwick:Well,LordMackaywasalittle
more understanding of that idea than I am. I think
that is an impossible idea. I do not think one could
conceivablyhaveministersgoingtotheLordssaying:
“Will this be all right or not?”, it just underlines
another point Lord Mackay made, how little people
who ought to know better, understand how things
actually work. Astonishing.
Chairman: That seems a very good note on which to
conclude your very helpful evidence. May I say, as I
said to Lord Mackay, if you do have any second
thoughts that you would like to show to this
Committee we would be grateful, but meanwhile
thank you very much for coming along. It has been a
very helpful session.
50
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
WEDNESDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2007
Present
Goodlad, L
Peston, L
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Rowlands, L
(Chairman)
Smith of Clifton, L
Lyell of Markyate, L
Windlesham, L
Morris of Aberavon, L
Woolf, L
O’Cathain, B
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Head of Criminal Justice,
Mr Mike Wicksteed, Head of Judicial Communications, Judicial Communications Office, and Mr Peter
Farr, Chief Public Information Officer, Judicial Communications Office, examined.
Q212 Chairman: Good morning, Sir Igor, a warm
welcome to you and your colleagues. We realise that
in these early days of relationships between the
judiciaryandParliamentsettlingdownunderthenew
dispensations, your being here is testing new ground.
Wearegoingtobetelevised,soIwonderifyouwould
care to introduce yourself and your colleagues for
the record.
Sir Igor Judge: Certainly. I am Igor Judge, President
of the Queen’s Bench Division and Head of Criminal
Justice. Mike Wicksteed is from the Lord Chief
Justice’s Communications OYce and Peter Farr is
from the Lord Chief Justice’s Press OYce.
Q213 Chairman: Thank you very much. Perhaps I
could plunge straight into the questioning. The
Judicial Communications OYce is obviously, in this
greater separation of powers, quite an important
hinge on the door, and being a hinge is potentially
rather uncomfortable, you feel quite a lot of pressure
and you have to make sure that it is possible for
people to pass through the door. I just wonder how
youseeyourownroleand—perhapsthisisaquestion
for Mr Wicksteed—how you conceive of the role of
the oYce. How far are you reactive—and there has
been plenty to react to in the past few months—and
how far do you think you have a proactive public
aVairs function, if you like, of putting forward the
best face of the judiciary and increasing public
understanding of what they do and how they do it?
Mr Wicksteed: We structured the oYce to take into
account both sides of that particular equation. There
are two elements to the oYce, one looks after the
media relations and tends broadly speaking to be
reactive,but there is aproactiveelementin it,andthe
other element is corporate communications or the
internal website type of aVairs that it looks after.
With regards to the press oYce part of the oYce,
whilst a lot of it is reactive in dealing with media
requests, it is actually there to support the judiciary.
We areajudicial facilityand ourprimeobjectiveis to
make sure that judges, magistrates and tribunals of
the judiciary have the support they need in the
communications arena. The press oYce is also
involvedin proactivework onbehalf ofthe judiciary.
Q214 Chairman: I wonder whether I could ask Sir
Igorwhetherheandhiscolleagues,particularlyinthe
senior judiciary, feel that this is an important aspect
of support for your work. How far do you think the
judges know about the Judicial Communication
OYceandiftheydoknowdotheythink,ohgood,we
have got that important and valuable support; or do
they think, I wonder what on earth they do?
Sir Igor Judge: If they do not know about it they are
notreadingwhattheyareprovidedwith;Idoubtvery
much if thereis ajudge whodoes notknow about the
Judicial Communications OYce. As to support, they
recognise that there is a limit to the amount of
support that can in fact be provided, but my reading
of the situation would be that they are very pleased
with how things have gone so far, but they do
recognise that there is a limit to what the Judicial
Communications OYce can do and in particular
what the press oYce can do. I do not want to be
discourteous, but they know that we are not a
Governmentdepartment.Theyknowthateverything
they say is taken down and is capable of being
reported; there is no going back on the words you
have used in court, you cannot regret them and think
I wish I had phrased that rather diVerently and
avoided tomorrow morning’s headlines, and so there
is nothing that can be done about that. I have quite
strong views about how cases are reported, but the
answer to your question is yes and yes.
Q215 Chairman: Could I just ask for information,
Mr Wicksteed and Mr Farr, what were your
previous jobs?
Mr Wicksteed: My previous job was in external
communications in the DCA/LCD and just before I
came across to the Judicial Communications OYce I
was head of corporate communications in DCA.
51
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
Q216 Chairman: Were you a civil servant?
Mr Wicksteed: I am a civil servant, yes; I have been
since I arrived in 1990.
Q217 Chairman: What about Mr Farr?
Mr Farr: Thank you, My Lord Chairman. I have
been a civil servant since 1998 in the DCA press
oYce,ortheLordChancellor’sDepartmentasitthen
was. That was my previous job and in fact I was
dealing with the judiciary in the DCA immediately
prior to coming across to the new oYce.
Q218 Chairman: Given that, is it right to say that
your whole loyalty and commitment now would be
not
to
the
DCA
but
to
the
Judicial
Communications OYce?
Mr Wicksteed: Absolutely, there is blue water
between us and Government communication oYces
or Government departments. We are a judicial
facility.
Q219 Chairman: I have not got absolutely clear how
the press oYce fits in—is it simply a very important
part of the JCO?
Mr Wicksteed: Correct.
Q220 Chairman: It is not a separate, free-standing
organisation.
Mr Wicksteed: No, and I do not think Peter would
want it to be.
Q221 Lord Rowlands: Lord Mackay in his evidence
saidto us“if apersonwas suYciently fit to be ajudge
of the bench in England and Wales he or she should
have suYcient judgment to know when they should
speak and when they should be silent in matters with
the media”. Does the creation of your oYce say that
is not quite the case, it needs backing up or
supporting or what?
Mr Farr: On that one, if I may lead, it is not always
the case that a judge is conscious that they are
speaking to the media; sometimes they are making
sentencingremarksandsoforthanditispickedupby
the media and becomes a story, and in those
situations, particularly where they are not expecting
to
be
prominently
featured,
they
are
very
appreciative of the support that we are sometimes
able to give them. It is not always the case that the
judge is aware that they are going to become a
story-piece.
Sir Igor Judge: If I may say so, the provision is not of
a spokesman. For example, if there is a sentencing
decision which looks as though it is going to hit the
headlines, it is very useful for the press oYce to be
supplied with every single thing that the judge has
said from the start of his sentencing remarks to the
end ofthem, so thatifsome editor ischoosing to pick
out one phrase, at least the reporter can be provided
with the full story so that the phrase can be put in
context. Thatmay ormay notaVect the wayinwhich
the case is reported, but that is an example of the
value of having a press oYce.
Q222 Baroness O’Cathain: May I go back to
something Mr Farr has just said in response to Lord
Rowlands’ question? Obviously, I read through all
the information and thank you very much for giving
us this, it has been very good information and the
website is terrific by the way.
Mr Wicksteed: Thank you.
Q223 Baroness O’Cathain: In the bit about media
support in this little booklet you say “We are always
grateful to hear of judges involved in things that
might interest the media, e.g. speeches, articles, or
who have views on media coverage.” That indicates
to me that they could be getting very close to
becomingpartofthemediacircus,iftheygetintouch
with you to say “There is an interesting point here,
why not actually explore this in the media?” Would
that happen?
Mr Farr: If I may, I do not think that is so much the
issue, their awareness is that they are operating in a
very public arena, there is a lot of interest, there is
likely to be coverageof a particularcase thatthey are
hearing
and they
are therefore conscious of
everything they say being gone over with a fine
toothcomb.They wantto flag upwhere there is afact
that the media are interested and so, for example, we
regularly send out judgments and summaries of
judgments on behalf of the judges because we know
thereisamediainterestinthemand,ofcourse,ifthey
have the full wording of the judgment or the
sentencing remarksthere is amuchbetterprospect of
themediabeingabletoreportitaccuratelyandfairly.
Q224 Baroness O’Cathain: I see, so you are there as
aservicetothemsotheydonotactuallyputtheirfoot
in it.
Mr Farr: I would not put it like that myself.
Q225 Baroness O’Cathain: Why not?
Sir Igor Judge: Because if we were going to put our
foot in it we would put our feet in it, I am afraid. For
example, if a judge is going to make a public speech
then the sensible thing is for the press oYce to have it
and then there is no argument, but I do not invite
Peter or Mike to look at the speech I am going to
make and say, “how will this go down with any
particular element of the media?”
Q226 Baroness O’Cathain: It is just giving it as a fait
accompli, this is the speech I am going to make, and
youcouldnotsaythereisacompletehowlerthere,do
not do it.
52
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
Sir Igor Judge: I would be pretty horrified, but on the
other hand if there was a real howler I would not
mind somebody just raising a little red flag.
Baroness O’Cathain: Thank you.
Q227 Chairman: Mr Wicksteed, would part of your
communications brief be to make judges in general
and particular judges more human, more media-
friendly, are you looking for human interest stories
that such and such a judge played the organ for eight
hoursinhisvillagechurchforcharity?Areyoutrying
to get human interest stories out there?
Mr Wicksteed: The quick answer to that is no, not at
this stage of the game. We are a new oYce, this is a
new concept really for the judiciary and it is really
part
of
a
culture
change,
as
is
the
whole
Constitutional Reform Act, and we are part of that
culture change. It will take a long time for it to bed
down, but in the meanrtime what we are here to do is
to make sure that the work that they do in court is
well and accurately reported broadly speaking.
Sir Igor Judge: I must say, if I may, “no, not ever”
would be my answer to the question as to whether
they really should be saying Mr Justice X is
particularly good as a tenor in the local village choir.
I really do not think that is what Mike or Peter’s
job is.
Q228 Chairman: Just a supplementary and then I
will bring Lord Rowlands in; is it part of your
practice to put the senior judiciary through media
training?
Mr Wicksteed: We have provided media training for
those who are going to be interviewed by reporters
for those who want it, but it is not a regular practice,
we do not have regular sessions, and that is a service
that I think we should be in a position to provide
them with because giving an interview to a national
newspaper can be quite a complicated thing
sometimes, especially if you are not used to dealing
with journalists at that level.
Q229 Chairman: Is that “prepping” a judge for a
specific interview or is it generic training?
Mr Wicksteed: It tends to be generic. What we did
produce, and I have brought copies with us if you
would like to look at them later—in LCD was a
booklet called The Media: A Guide for Judges and
that gave quite a lot of information on how judges
could interact with the media; it was put out to all
judges serving at the time and passed out to newly
appointed judges. That is what that Ryman’s bag is,
and I will pass it up to you later. It is very, very
generic in terms of the information we give out.
Chairman:Thankyouverymuch; wewilllookatthat
with interest. Lord Morris.
Q230 Lord Morris of Aberavon: I am very interested
in the comments made regarding the service of
providing, where required, the full wording of a
judgment at the request of the press. Could you give
some rough indication what proportion of the press
oYce’s work that is; it would seem to me to be very
important to get the odd expression which may be
not quite fortunate into its right perspective. As Sir
Igor said, once the words are uttered it is impossible
to reclaim them—I think that comes from Virgil, but
never mind.
Mr Farr: I would not like to put it in percentage
terms, but it is certainly a reasonable proportion of
the time. We are constantly looking ahead to what
cases are coming up and whether we can provide
material for the media on the cases, but of course a
lot of the time is spent in dealing with enquiries both
from journalists and from the media themselves, and
preparingforannouncementsandspeechesandother
matters in due course. A fair proportion of our time,
therefore, is preparing and so on, yes.
Q231 Chairman: Perhaps, Sir Igor, I could ask you
something which is very topical in the Committee’s
mind which is that you yourself are a very senior
judge with wide experience. I wonder ifyou would be
prepared to characterise your reaction or that of any
of your colleagues to the recent statement from the
Home Secretary, which was issued together with the
Attorney-General,
which
ostensibly
was
a
clarification of sentencing guidelines, but in relation
to the overcrowding of prisons. I can see that that
might be innocently interpreted as a reminder of the
status quo, whichwasbasically theglossthatwasput
onitsubsequently,oritmighthavebeenseenas atap
ontheshouldersayingwatchout,theprisonsarevery
overcrowded so be sure to follow the guidelines very
closely, please.Ijustwondered whetheritwasseen as
a steer or a reminder by you and your colleagues.
Sir Igor Judge: There is a certain amount of
misunderstanding about the sequence of events. The
Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the
Attorney-General in the National Criminal Justice
Board, of which I am a member, produced a
statement relating to the overcrowding of prisons. I
showed that statement to the senior presiding judge,
LordJusticeLevison;hetooktheview,intheexercise
of his function, that that was an appropriate
statement for him to send out to judges. It was not
sent out by anyminister, norwas any minister asking
LordJusticeLevisontohaveitsentout.Hesentitout
saying this is in eVect the information that has been
given to the National Criminal Justice Board, and
thenLordPhillipsissuedafurtherstatement.Imyself
never sawthatstatement asan attempttoimpinge on
the way in which judges should approach sentencing.
The issue of overcrowding in prisons is one which we
have addressed and was addressed last week in a
53
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
judgment that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice
Latham and I gave. There has been a certain amount
of uncertainty, I think is the way to put it, about the
way in which those events unfolded.
Q232 Chairman: I am grateful to you because you
are clearly in a position to know what the facts are
and that is very helpful to the Committee, but can I
just be absolutely clear, there was no question of
these very senior ministers saying we would be
grateful if this could be passed on to all the judges.
Sir Igor Judge: I am a member of the National
Criminal Justice Board so they will have known that
I will have got it and I saw it. I decided to pass it on;
I think they would have assumed that I would have
passed it on but I decided thatI should pass it on and
it wasnot for them to tell me whether to do soor not,
and then it was for Lord Justice Levison to decide
whether or not it was something that he thought it
appropriate to have circulated to judges, and he did.
Q233 Chairman:Itisveryhelpfultohavethat.What
do you think the eVect was on the recipients in this
perfectly proper way as you describe it? Maybe you
know what the reaction was.
Sir Igor Judge: I do not know what they all thought,
but by the time 24 hours had gone by it would have
been very diYcult for anybody to know what the
actual facts were. Certainly those who thought that
the Home Secretary was seeking to influence their
sentencing decisions would have been absolutely
outraged; that is not something that judges are
prepared
to
stomach,
and
so
if
there
were
misunderstandings, there were. But the facts are as I
have given them to you. I think the judges now
understand the sequence of events because they will
have had their letter from Lord Justice Levison
saying this is the statement prepared by the NCJB. I
should add that we are very worried about
overcrowding in prisons; it is an issue which
troubles judges.
Q234 Chairman: To get it right, these very senior
ministers could reasonably have assumed that you
wouldseethatitwaspassedon,thatwouldhavebeen
a reasonable assumption on their part.
Sir Igor Judge: That would have been a reasonable
assumption; I would have been failing in my duty if I
had not passed it on.
Chairman: Good, thank you very much. Perhaps we
can move on. Baroness O’Cathain.
Q235 Baroness O’Cathain: Thank you. The DCA
websitesaysthatyourorganisationwasdrawnup“to
enhancepublicconfidence in judicialoYce holders in
England and Wales”. Although it has only been
going for a short period of time, do you have any
evidence that it is actually achieving great success or
just modest success or no success at all?
Sir Igor Judge: If you are asking me, the ambition is
rather a large and wide one. Enhancing public
confidence is a most diYcult concept and it is
particularly diYcult, if I may say so, for judges who
actually are not in the business of trying to sell
themselves to anyone. If our judgments do not speak
for
themselves
there
is
nothing
that
the
Communications OYce or the press oYce can do.
There are much deeper problems about the way in
which our judgments are reported, about public
attitudes to judges based on the way our cases are
reported, so my answer to your question is I am very
troubled about the target. As to whether it is being
achieved or not, Idonot know howyoutell butthere
arevariousstatisticswhichshowthatthepublictends
to trust judges rather more than it trusts, shall we say
for the sake of argument, politicians.
Q236 Baroness O’Cathain: That would not be
terribly diYcult.
Sir Igor Judge: Mike Wicksteed might be in a better
position to add to that.
Q237 Baroness O’Cathain: Have you had surveys
done or do you intend having a survey done?
Mr Wicksteed: At this stage of the game, no, we do
not. The concept of enhancement sort of indicates
that there is a problem. To my way of thinking there
is not a problem and I have attached to the material
that I provided Committee members a couple of
surveys that were conducted last year, one from
YouGov and one from Mori. Those show that the
judiciary are third in both cases in terms of, broadly
speaking, public trust. We do not take credit for that
and as you can see from the Mori poll that has been
the case now for many years; I think it goes back as
far as 1983. The terminology may not be quite right,
but our objective is more than the public-facing
confidence in the judiciary, our objective also
contains
a
requirement
to
support
internal
communication with the judiciary. That is extremely
important, that the Lord Chief Justice and the senior
judiciary
can
get
messages
down
to
judges,
magistrates and tribunals of the judiciary.
Q238 Baroness O’Cathain: Does that mean that the
Lord Chief Justice is going to spend even more time
doing what in eVect is media relations?
Mr Wicksteed: No, I do not think so.
Q239 Baroness O’Cathain: Or preparing for media
relations.
Mr Wicksteed: No.
54
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
Q240 Baroness O’Cathain: One of the interesting
things in the YouGov poll was that judges actually
came higher than BBC news journalists.
Mr Wicksteed: That would probably have been in the
days of Mr Rozenberg, when he was there. The
interesting thing about the YouGov poll was that the
judiciary were the only profession to have actually
increased in public confidence in the three years since
the previous poll was taken. Every other single
professionwasanegative.WhythatisIdonotknow,
but I thought it was pretty impressive.
Q241 Chairman: Are you claiming credit for that?
Mr Wicksteed: No, I am afraid I cannot.
Q242 Lord Goodlad: Could I ask something about
the organisational structure of the JCO? How many
people work in the JCO; how many of them are press
oYcers and how many of them are qualified lawyers
and to whom does the head of the JCO report?
Mr Wicksteed: I will answer the last question first. I
report to Deborah Matthews who is head of the
DirectorateofJudicialOYcesforEnglandandWales
andthatdirectoratecomprises ouroYce,the Judicial
OYce and the Judicial Studies Board. I work to the
LordChiefJusticeandtheseniorjudiciary.TheoYce
itself has eight posts; we actually have nine staV
because one of those posts is a job share. There are
two press oYcer posts, Peter is one and the job share
post is in fact the other press oYcer post so we are
actually getting 0.2 of a press oYcer for free under
thatparticularset-up.ThecorporatesideoftheoYce
has a staV of four: two who look after Web and
intranet issues, one who is the editor of Benchmark
which is the monthly judicial magazine, and that is
headed up by Mr Golding who oversees that team.
Q243 Lord Goodlad: Are they lawyers?
Mr Wicksteed: None of them are lawyers, or none of
us are lawyers, no.
Q244 Lord Goodlad: Could I ask if, when the set-up
and operation of the oYce was designed, you looked
at similar organisations in other legal systems? Do
you have suYcient resources and what is the size and
nature of your budget?
MrWicksteed:Wedidlookaroundtoseeiftherewere
similar organisations; there are not. I am not saying
we are the only judicial communications oYce in the
world, but in other jurisdictions and in other
countries they tend to have a responsibility not only
forthe judiciary butfor the courtsthemselves. Wedo
not have that responsibility; Her Majesty’s Court
Service has its own communications team so in that
sense we are fairly unique. I might be wrong, but I
havenotcomeacross anotheroYce thatsupports the
judiciary. You asked whether I have enough staV
resource; we are governed by a head count ceiling
whichmeansthatevenifIwantedanothermemberof
staV to increase the eight to nine or ten I cannot do
that in the present climate, and that ceiling is across
Whitehall at the moment. We are constantly
reviewing the set-up that we have within our own
head count resource and it could well be that maybe
in a year’s time we would be in a position to increase
the press oYce side of the business to maybe three
press oYcers, but then we would have to lose
someone somewhere else. We are not quite at that
stage yet.
Q245 Lord Goodlad: And the budget?
Mr Wicksteed: The budget for next year is £890,000.
I have the detail: £452,000 of that goes on salaries;
oYce running costs will be £55,000; training for the
staV, visits, team visits and suchlike will be £25,000;
the Web is expensive, that is £90,000; Benchmark the
judicial
magazine,
which
is
only
published
electronically, we do not publish it in printed format
becausethatwouldbeabsolutelyextortionate,comes
in at £45,000 and then we have the running of the
press oYce and projects that we may be looking at
next year but we have not confirmed yet.
Chairman: Discussion of budgets always excites
supplementary questions. Lord Peston and then
Lord Morris.
Q246 Lord Peston: £400K is the wage costs.
Mr Wicksteed: £450K approximately.
Q247 Lord Peston: How many staV?
Mr Wicksteed: Eight staV.
Q248 Lord Peston: That is £50,000 odd each.
Mr Wicksteed: It would be jolly nice if we all got the
money but we do not.
Q249 Lord Peston: That staV includes secretaries
and researchers.
Mr Wicksteed: That includes the eight of us.
Q250 Lord Morris of Aberavon: That is everybody.
Mr Wicksteed: Everybody, yes.
Q251 Lord Peston: The eight are the press people
and secretaries.
Mr Wicksteed: The press people, the corporate
communications team.
Q252 Lord Peston: Eight seems very few but on the
other hand £400K seems about the right number,
that is why I am trying to get my head round it a
little bit.
Mr Wicksteed: Maybe I am paid too much.
55
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
Q253 Lord Peston: I assumed when you said the
eight that in addition to the eight each of the eight
would have a secretary and then you would have
researchers and people answering the phone.
Mr Wicksteed: No, we do all that ourselves.
Q254 Lord Peston: You are a very economical
organisation in that sense.
Mr Wicksteed: In the sense that I do not have a
secretary to support me, yes.
Lord Peston: In terms of almost fundamental
economics that is bad, you ought not to be doing
that, your comparative advantage is in being what
you are, not in being a secretary, a phone-answerer
and all that.
Q255 Baroness
O’Cathain:
That
is
very
old-
fashioned, Lord Peston.
Mr Wicksteed: It would be nice but, as I say, we are
governed by the head count.
Lord Peston: You are economical so that is a good
plus.
Q256 Lord Morris of Aberavon: You say you are
new; you replaced something, what of the staV of
what you replaced?
Mr Wicksteed: I am sorry, I did not follow that.
Q257 Lord Morris of Aberavon: You are an
organisation of eight people and you have a new
function. There must have been somebody doing
some of your work before. Now we have one and a
half press oYcers it seems to be very slim, but what
have you replaced?
Mr Wicksteed: We do not replace anything, we are
brand new. What Lord Mackay did when he became
LordChancellorwashemade hispressoYce,backin
the Lord Chancellor’s Department, available to the
judiciary and so up until April 2005 all calls relating
to the judiciary
were
handled by
the
Lord
Chancellor’s Department or latterly the DCA press
oYce.
Q258 Lord Woolf: Forgive me, it is not right,
however,tosaythatthedecisiontohaveapressoYce
was linked to the decision no longer to have a Lord
Chancellor. If I may just refresh your memory, there
had been problems about the Lord Chancellor’s
DepartmentactingasthepressoYceforthejudiciary
beforetheLordChancellor’soYcewasreformedand
at least the negotiations for the creation of a press
oYce predated the demise of Lord Irvine.
MrWicksteed:Yes,andtheoYcedoesnotexistunder
the Constitutional Reform Act, it would have
happened anyway if that Act had come into force
or not.
Q259 Chairman: Am I right in thinking, or have I
got this wrong, that your budget, this £800,000 or so,
is actually DCA money?
Mr Wicksteed: It is allocated through DCA, yes.
Q260 Chairman: Do you account to the DCA for
your expenditure?
Mr Wicksteed: I do not, I account to the Judicial
Executive Board.
Q261 Chairman: Do they in turn account to the
budget provider, the Department?
Mr Wicksteed: Yes.
Q262 Chairman: Do you think it would be better if
you had your own budget?
Mr Wicksteed: I do not think that is for me to say, I
am afraid.
Q263 Chairman: When the Supreme Court is set up
will that have a parallel organisation to your own to
your knowledge?
Mr Wicksteed: To my knowledge it will have a press
oYce, certainly, or an information oYce. How large
that will be I do not know and what its role will be I
do not know either.
Q264 Chairman: Do you see that that would be
likely to be a DCA budget or the Supreme Court
having itsown funding andthereforeitsownbudget?
Mr Wicksteed: I suspect that if the Supreme Court is
to be funded separately it will be part of the Supreme
Court budget.
Q265 Chairman: It will have its own budget for
information and press and so on?
Mr Wicksteed: Yes.
Q266 Chairman: Do you see dangers of you falling
over each other’s feet?
Mr Wicksteed: No, not at all. There is a colleague in
Scotland who is a press oYcer for the Scottish
judiciary,they areabout to appointapress oYcerfor
the judiciary in Northern Ireland, we are in contact
with them quite regularly and we would just see the
Supreme Court as being another team to be in
contact with.
Q267 Chairman: You will have to put something in
your budget for travel and entertainment when all
you press people get together I imagine.
Mr Wicksteed: I travel on the Tube; it does not get
very expensive.
Q268 Lord Smith of Clifton: What is the oYce’s
strategy for dealing with judgments and sentences
that are likelyto be criticised in the newspapers? You
said you were reactive by and largeso youonly know
56
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
thatitis likelyto be ahotpotatoissue after the event,
so to speak.
Mr Farr: That is not always the case. We usually
know
in
advance
if
there
is
a
particularly
controversial case where a judgment is to be handed
down; we do not always know on sentencing,
through occasionally a judge will contact us in
advance and say you ought to be aware that I am
passing down a sentence in this case today, either
there has been a lot of media interest in it or it is
reasonabletoassumethattherewillbemediainterest
in it. Our approach on those occasions is to try our
best to ensure that there is something available to be
giventothemedia,eitherintermsofajudgmentorin
termsofsentencingremarks.Thatisthebestprospect
really for the media being able to report things
accurately and in context because the judgment and
the sentencing remarks will take into account all the
preceding weeks of evidence and the cases on both
sides, it will take account of things like the
aggravating factors or the mitigating factors that the
judge has considered in the sentence and also the
statutory framework and any sentencing guidelines.
Often if the media are aware of the full picture they
are much more likely to write a fair and accurate
report than if the focus narrows down just on the X
number of years sentence or X number of years
minimum tariV.
Mr Wicksteed: In the pack that you will get after this
with the media guides there are a couple of examples
of summaries that we issued on behalf of judges, one
last week and one the week before.
Q269 LordSmithofClifton:Thatwillbeveryuseful,
thank you very much. What sort of scanning
operation do you do? Do you have some sort of
internal radar which can tell you or do you rely upon
the judges by and large to inform you that it is going
to be a special case?
Mr Farr: It is a combination. Quite often judges do
contact us and let us know in advance; quite often it
only becomes clear on the day and a story can be
promptedby,forexample,somerelative’sreactionto
the sentence, the outcry is what makes it a story and
all of a sudden the judge finds that the sentence he
passed is now controversial.
Q270 Lord Smith of Clifton: Is there a diVerent
incidence according to the seniority of the court? Is
there more drama in the Crown Court as opposed to
the Court of Appeal or what?
Mr Farr: That is a diYcult one. The Crown Court
certainly has the theatrical elements—the jury and
thepackedpublicgallery—whichinasensetheCourt
of Appeal does not, but it really can be any court at
any time. I have seen County Courts that have been
involved in very controversial or high profile cases
and it can depend on the parties; there is a whole
range of diVerent factors that makes something of
value and interest to the media and to the wider
public.
Lord Rowlands: I was going to raise the Sweeney case
and it might appropriately come in here; is that all
right, My Lord Chairman?
Chairman: Yes, please.
Q271 Lord Rowlands: What about the Sweeney case
which was almost one of the first tests of
communication. The Lord Chief Justice was abroad
when the trial judge was criticised; have you devised
any contingency plans since to cover the situation
where you had a kind of media silence and the press
reported what it reported?
Sir Igor Judge: Do you mind, My Lord Chairman, if
I start by answering that? Again, a certain number of
myths have arisen about the Sweeney case and let me
see if I can address some of them. The Lord Chief
Justice was out of England, but he was not that far
away, hewas in Poland. Iwas speaking to him on the
telephone, I have no doubt his oYce was speaking to
him on the telephone, he had not disappeared.
Second, you never know when a case is going to
suddenly erupt as that one did. It erupted in fact
following an article in The Sunday Times about over-
lenient judges, which was addressed by the press
oYce on Monday morning and then came this
ghastly case, and it certainly was a ghastly case, on
any analysis.By theeveningof thatdaythe television
was reporting it and we perfectly well knew that on
Tuesdaytherewouldbealotofnewspaperheadlines.
What of course you cannot tell with the newspapers
is whether today’s headlines are tomorrow’s, or
forgotten because something else has overtaken the
newspapers’ interest. The complication in that case
was that a senior minister commented on the case.
That is really something that we are not used to; we
donot expect senior ministersto commenton judges’
sentencing decisions. The Attorney-General has a
role to play, he will decide whether or not the
sentence in his judgment is unduly lenient and will
refer it to the court, but he will not make a speech
about it, he will simply say that he proposes, if he
does, to refer it. By Wednesday the story was still
running and there were two problems: one, does a
judge, whether the Lord Chief Justice or me, in eVect
dealing with this particular case because it was a
criminal case, actually take a stand and start arguing
publicly with a minister of the Crown about whether
or not the minister’s intervention was appropriate
and
start
a
whole
issue
running
about
the
Government and the judiciary embattled. That, if I
may say so, is a topic which the media loves to
explore;Isupposeyouareallusedtothembeingkeen
to demonstrate that you are all embattled in diVerent
ways. This was a big current story. I took the view,
and that was my responsibility, that if a minister was
57
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
ineVectto beaddressedithadto bedone bythe Lord
Chancellor. The second feature of the case, which is
sometimes overlooked, is that if the Attorney had
decidedtoreferit,whichhemighthavedone,orifthe
defendant, notwithstanding the press, had decided
the sentence was excessive he would have had a right
of appeal; that appeal would almost certainly have
been heard by a constitution consisting of the Lord
ChiefJustice or meor aseniorjudge or,indeed, more
than one of us. We could not comment on the
sentencing process if we were likely to be sitting for
all sorts of obvious reasons, and so the right person
to deal with that was the Lord Chancellor. I spoke to
the Lord Chancellor personally on the Wednesday
morning—
Q272 Lord Rowlands: The story had been running
for two to three days by that time.
Sir Igor Judge: The sentence is passed on Monday,
thestory is running big on Tuesday—thatis themain
headline—and it is still running on Wednesday. On
Wednesday morning I spoke to the Lord Chancellor,
he told me that he would address the issue when he
was on the television that night—andhe did—and he
then addressed it again on the Thursday morning.
Looking back on it, you could say that that
combination of circumstances should have been
addressed more quickly, but it was a very unusual
situation. I really do not remember a senior minister
commenting in the way of the comment produced in
that case. There was quite an interesting and diYcult
decision in relation to Government and judiciary,
and there was, as I say, the second thing which was
overlooked, which is that the Lord Chief Justice
really cannot comment.
Q273 Lord
Rowlands:
Have
you
drawn
any
conclusions about how you would handle the
situation if a situation like this arose again?
Sir Igor Judge: Yes, I would get on to the Lord
ChancellormorequicklythanIdid,butIwouldhope
that in view of the intervention, at any rate for a year
or two, there will not be any ministerial comment of
that kind. Then people forget about it and no doubt
as things go forward in 10 years time it will happen
again. It was a very, very rare and unusual situation.
Q274 Lord Rowlands: Should not the Sweeney case
in the first place have come up on the internal radar
screen?
SirIgorJudge:Itundoubtedlywouldhavedone;once
the story starts to run it would. It was a horrible case
and therefore you could be sure somebody would
take an interest in it. I simply do not know whether
Peter remembers whether it came up on the radar
screen.
Mr Farr: We were aware that the sentence was going
to be passed and it was a high profile case, certainly.
The force of the coverage was in the juxtaposition of
the mediaclimateat thetime of sentencingis soft and
something must be done about it, and this case
arrived bang on cue, unfortunately for the judge
concerned, in the middle of that period.
Q275 Chairman: It is very good of you to have
explained that. I was struck, listening to it, that you
were personally playing the role of crisis manager of
this little media storm and trying to work out what
should be done and who should do it.
Sir Igor Judge: I suppose so, yes.
Q276 Chairman: It is clearly quite important that as
well as an issue that we have been thinking about, as
well as there being a senior judicial spokesman or
spokesperson available, that there is someone saying
“Okay, this is what has to be done.” I wonder in that
context whether as well as getting hold of the Lord
Chancellor—and it is easier to look back on these
things than to cope at the time—there should not
have been some sort of holding statement from the
JCO saying the judge was simply following the
sentencing guidelines until you could get the Lord
ChancellortodohisstuVwithintheGovernmentand
ask ministers to shut up.
Sir Igor Judge: Looking back on it, maybe, but I do
not think it has ever been thought necessary in the
past for anybody to say the judge was following
sentencing guidelines.
Q277 Chairman: Why? Because the media would
know this, would they?
Sir Igor Judge: That is a very interesting question,
because the truth is that you do not know how a case
is going to be reported and the moment somebody
speaks up in eVect and says the judge was only
following sentencing guidelines, you then enter what
I regard as an extremely diYcult world. You have
somebody who is not the judge in the case
commenting on the judge’s decision; in my view no
judge shouldcomment onany other judge’s decision.
The Court of Appeal will if the matter goes to the
Court of Appeal. Who is the spokesman to be, an
unqualified member of the press oYce, a qualified
member of the press oYce, a lawyer, but what can he
say beyond what the judge has set out in his
sentencing remarks? In that case the sentencing
remarks were absolutely plain: “I start at this, I have
to take account of that and I then have to take
account of this”. Anybody reading it would know
perfectly well that he had followed the sentencing
requirements. I am troubled about the idea of a
spokesman. What happens if the judge’s sentence is
completely barking? It may be way over the top—
seven yearsfor ashoplifter.Dowehaveaspokesman
58
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
to say the judge was wrong or do we have a
spokesman to say, “well let us try and find some
justification?” Judges cannot have their decisions
justifiedexpostfacto,theirdecisionshavetobemade
in court, every word spoken in court to the people
who really matter: in criminal cases the defendant,
the victims andthe people who werepresent in court,
and if the jury decided that the verdict should be
guilty, they too. We do have to be very careful not to
create of our Judicial Communications OYce the
idea that they are spin doctors; there is going to be
unattributable briefing, all the paraphernalia that
goes with—I hope I am not being discourteous to
anybody—running a government department. We
are responsible for what we say in court and people
should not have to defend us or criticise us publicly
until it goes to a higher court.
Q278 Chairman: We have all become very aware of
and are sympathetic to the problem, and you have
articulated it in a way we have not heard quite so
clearly, but the problem with the media is that they
abhor a vacuum and into a vacuum they will put
whatever is necessary to keep the story going. I see
the problem.
SirIgorJudge: Doyoumind, mayIjust showyouthe
sort of thing you are up against? I am now going to
showyoutwonewspaperheadlinesthemorningafter
the British crime statistics were published. I use this
on a lecture I give on sentencing, if you will forgive
me.Youwillnotknowwhichnewspaperitisbuthere
is the headline in one newspaper: “Lawless UK”.
“Seriousviolenceup15percent;sexoVencesup7per
cent;violencewithnoinjuryup24percent.”Another
newspaper: “Crime—The Truth”. “New figures
reveal that crime has fallen 39 per cent. The falling
crime rate: vandalism down 27 per cent, vehicle theft
down 51 per cent, all violent crime including rape
down 36 per cent.” What was I reading here—
“Seriousviolenceup15percent;sexoVencesup7per
cent; violence with no injury up 24 per cent.” The
newspaper
editors
of
those
two
particular
newspapers would get hold of a sentencing decision
byajudgeandtheymightverywellhaveacompletely
diVerentangleonthedecision.Wehadanexampleof
that last week where, sitting with the Lord Chief
Justice, we decided to allow an appeal against
sentenceonthebasisthatthiswasnotaprisoncase—
it was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm—
and it got a lot of headlines. I will not go into the
details of the case but there were very serious
criticisms made of the decision and there were also
some
favourable
comments;
there
was
no
spokesperson who could possibly have said anything
about that case.
Lord Rowlands: You do not need a Judicial
Communications OYce.
Q279 BaronessO’Cathain:Iwasgoingtosayexactly
the same thing.
Sir Igor Judge: If I may, the answer is yes, but not to
act as a spokesman to justify a judicial decision.
Q280 Lord Goodlad: Could just ask Sir Igor to go
back to his very interesting comment that in
retrospectaftertherehadbeenaministerialcomment
on a sentencing decision he might have acted a few
hours earlier to prompt the Lord Chancellor to
intervene. Do you think, Sir Igor, that the Lord
Chancellor might intervene without having to be
prompted by you; as a corollary do you think the
Lord Chancellor perhaps should not intervene unless
prompted by you?
Sir Igor Judge: The answer to the specific question is
I am quite sure he intended to intervene on the
Wednesday by the time I rang, so I would not myself
claim any credit for prompting him, but there was a
discussion in which he made clear he had decided to
speak that evening. As a second point, we have to be
very careful about the constitutional position here.
TheLordChancellorisamemberoftheGovernment
whose role has changed rather dramatically; he is no
longer head of the judiciary but he has his
constitutional obligations in relation to judicial
independence. There is a judgment to be made on
each of these occasions and if the judgment may not
be a judgment—speaking personally, and purely
personally—that I think is right, I feel perfectly
entitled to ring him up and make my comments, but
in the end of course the decision that he makes is for
him not for me. I am not sure that is an answer to
your question, but if I have not answered it, would
you like me to add a comment?
Q281 Lord Goodlad: The main question was should
he or should he not have acted after a minister had
commented on a sentencing decision without having
to be prompted by you?
SirIgor Judge: As Isay, Iwould notwant to leavethe
impression that I am saying he was prompted by me,
because on the Wednesday he told me that he had
alreadydecidedwhathewasgoingtodo.Ididnotsay
“Will you do something this evening on Question
Time?”
Q282 LordMorrisofAberavon:MyLordChairman,
on that issue of delay, was not his first comment to
defendtheminister’srighttoraisethematterpublicly
with the Attorney-General and it was thereafter that
he defended the judge?
Sir Igor Judge: Your memory is better than mine, I
had forgotten that.
Chairman: These are diYcult areas and I have a
number of my colleagues who would like to come in.
Lord Lyell.
59
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
Q283 Lord Lyell of Markyate: Sir Igor, we are
focusing on the heart of this matter at the moment,
andifIjustaskthequestioninaverystraightforward
way—it will probably make it more diYcult to
answer—what
is
your
understanding
of
the
respective roles of the Lord Chief Justice and the
Lord Chancellor in publicly defending judicial
independence?
Sir Igor Judge: As the Lord Chief Justice is head of
the judiciary I would have thought it would
absolutely follow that one of his major obligations
was to defend judicial independence. The Lord
Chancellor has a statutory obligation to do so and,
again, I would have thought this was an elementary
part of the obligations of the Lord Chancellor of the
day.As towhereonegoesiftheyarenot talkingfrom
the same hymn sheet, I would expect the Lord Chief
Justice of the day to do whatever he thought was
right,irrespective of theview of theLord Chancellor,
becauseheisheadofthejudiciaryandmustrepresent
the judiciary.
Q284 Lord Lyell of Markyate: If we go back to the
origins of this and Lord Irvine and Mr Blunkett—
because there were a number of preceding cases
before the change in the constitutional position—
would you not agree that the constitutional position
remains that the Lord Chancellor has a very strong
duty to protect judicial independence, that he should
be ready to stand up for that as soon as it appears to
be called into question and that ministers should
recognise that they have a duty. Of course they are
entitled to make balanced comment, but they should
exercisesignificantrestraintinthewaythattheydoit.
Sir Igor Judge: Yes, and yes, to both halves of that.
The Lord Chancellor continues, notwithstanding the
changes in the constitutional arrangements, to have
his or her own independent obligation to defend
judicial independence; I have no doubt about that.
The
same
applies
to
the
second;
ministers
undoubtedly should be careful. For example, if a
ministerfindsthereisanadversejudgmentagainsthis
department in the administrative court, commenting
on the judge seems to me to be completely
unacceptable, butof course the ministeris allowed to
say “We disagree with the judge’s position and we
intend to appeal”. There is no reason why he should
say he accepts a decision if he does not, but criticism
of his judging seems to me to be inappropriate.
Q285 Lord Lyell of Markyate: Sir Igor, that is very
valuable.YouhavethepressoYceandMrWicksteed
and Mr Farr are here. It is obviously important to a
Lord Chancellor or a Lord Chief Justice to be
thoroughly acquainted with the facts; if I can turn to
your colleagues, to what extent is there close
communication between the press oYces of the
JudicialCommunicationsOYce andtheDepartment
of ConstitutionalAVairs sothatthe Lord Chancellor
is swiftly put in the picture?
Mr Wicksteed: That is a good question for Peter.
Mr Farr: We have regular contact with the
Department for Constitutional AVairs press oYce
and other press oYces as appropriate, the Home
OYce and so forth. It is not a case of agreeing a
common position on occasions, it is more a case of
how are you responding to this? We get their lines
and they get our lines, our position on something, so
that we are aware of what each other is saying.
Q286 Lord Lyell of Markyate: If we go back to the
Sweeney
case,
how
quickly
did
the
Judicial
Communications OYce recognise that the trial judge
hadpreciselyfollowedandvery carefullyfollowedall
the sentencingrequirementsandhowquicklywasthe
Department of Constitutional AVairs press oYce
also aware of that?
Mr Farr: We were quite quickly aware because once
a transcript became available we were sent a copy of
the sentencing remarks which we duly sent out,
although it tended to get a bit lost in the storm. I am
not sure how quickly the DCA press oYce was aware
but certainly I know that they would have been sent
it. I believe it was sent to them roughly the same time
as ourselves.
Q287 Lord Lyell of Markyate: If it happened again
do you think it would happen more swiftly?
Mr Farr: I think so.
Chairman: While we are in this area, Lord Peston
might have a question.
Q288 Lord Peston: My question has been answered,
My Lord Chairman, very clearly by Sir Igor as to the
roleofajudge,possiblyretired,inexplainingwhythe
decision
had
been
taken,
and
Sir
Igor
has
categorically said no way.
Sir Igor Judge: I would be particularly worried about
a retired judge doing it because he certainly would
not know about the 2003 Criminal Justice Act and
although I know about it, I have to look it up every
time I have to make a decision. It is not easy
legislation.
Q289 Chairman: There are no circumstances in
which you would want a senior spokesman.
Sir Igor Judge: I am speaking only for myself, not in
relation to the judicial decision; I do not want the
decision justified other than by the judge. How the
oYce works to make sure that all the facts are
available to those with an interest in the case is a
diVerent matter, but to have all the facts of the case
available and then have a retired judge saying “I
think the sentencing judge did a jolly good job here”
is not actually the way I personally would like to see
it work, but that is my own view.
60
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
Q290 Chairman: As you said earlier in response to
my question the reason for your feeling that is it then
creates a game of tit-for-tat; that is the reason you do
not want the judiciary’s best case made early in the
piece, you want it to be part of the process that
happensinvisiblybetween theLordChiefJustice and
the Lord Chancellor and probably more visibly
between the Lord Chancellor and fellow ministers.
Sir Igor Judge: Yes, and the judge has the
responsibilityofmakingclearwhyhehasreachedthe
decision that he has. The most important people for
that—Mr Rozenberg will forgive me—are not the
press, it is the people in court, the defendant, the
victims. They are the people to whom these remarks
have to be addressed.
Chairman:
Thank
you.
Let
us
go
to
Lord
Windlesham.
Q291 Lord Windlesham: Running through the
dialogue I had a question dating back to my own
time, many, many years ago, at the Home OYce.
Does the Home OYce—I seek information here—
have any role currently on sentencing policy and
decision?
Sir Igor Judge: No. That is the answer, but there is
something more to come. We now have a Sentencing
Guidelines Council and the way in which that system
works, taking it very briefly, is that the Sentencing
Guidelines Council, after taking advice from the
sentencing
Advisory
Panel,
produces
a
draft
guideline which has to be submitted directly to the
three ministers—the Home Secretary, the Lord
Chancellor and the Attorney-General—and the
Home AVairs Committee. They are entitled if they
wish to comment on the draft guideline in any way
they think appropriate. When the consultation
period is over those observations come back to the
SentencingGuidelinesCouncil which thenreflectson
them and then produces the guideline which it thinks
appropriate, so in fact there is a link between the
Home AVairs Committee, the Home Secretary of the
day and the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
Q292 Lord Windlesham: There are a lot of people
now involved, are there not? At one stage the Home
Secretary
had
almost
complete
oversight
of
proceedings,butnowthereareothersaswellandyou
have indicated who they are.
Sir Igor Judge: Yes.
Q293 Lord Windlesham: Does that lead to a degree
of diversification andtherefore no real certainty as to
what the likely outcomes will be?
Sir Igor Judge: On the particular issue that you asked
me about there is no problem. When the information
comes back, it is considered by the Sentencing
Guidelines Council which produces its answer. But if
I may say so you are asking a much wider question,
which is, who is going to be responsible for policy in
relation to prisons, probation, mandatory sentences,
sentencesof imprisonmentandpublic protectionand
so on. There the answer is the legislature, and the
answer is the Home OYce is still in charge of the
legislation which produces our criminal justice
system.
Q294 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Could I ask about
the role of the Lord Chief Justice in media strategy?
Under what circumstances is he asked for guidance
and asked by the media to make an appearance?
Mr Farr: As head of the judiciary, as you would
expect, we keep the Lord Chief Justice abreast of all
the significant news stories relating to judges.
Certainly if we were preparing a response to an issue
that was very topical and controversial we would
either use the Lord Chief Justice’s own words or we
would make sure that the form of words that the
oYce was using was one that he was content with. In
terms of media interest in the Lord Chief Justice,
interview bids arriveregularly fromall sortsof media
organisationsforallsortsofthings.Someofthemare
quite inappropriate, for example would the Lord
Chief Justice like to come along and talk about this
particular decision in this particular case which, as
Sir Igor has outlined, is clearly not something we can
entertain. Others are broader, and he considers those
and
he
makes
a
judgment
with
his
other
commitmentspermitting whether he would accede to
that request.
Q295 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Could I follow that
up regarding how he makes a judgment. Mr Joshua
Rozenberg said the other day that he had not given a
pressinterviewforayear;isthatunusual?Whatisthe
advice tendered to him, should he be more accessible
or not or is he making the right decision?
Sir Igor Judge: I would like to say something, with
respect, if you do not mind. The Lord Chief Justice
gave an interview in October 2005 and if you have at
any time a chance to read the transcript, the media
questioning of him—and I emphasise media, not just
newspapers—page after page after page includes at
least one question which is designed to elicit some
remarks from the Lord Chief Justice which will
enable the story to be “Lord Chief Justice at odds
with . . . ” or “Fury at . . . ”—you can write your
headline no doubt as well as I can—“with the
Government”. That is not actually a very happy way
for a Lord Chief Justice to be interviewed, and if the
object of having a conference is simply to address
practical issues but the questions are loaded to
produce the “Fury with Government” kind of
headlines, the Lord Chief Justice is entitled to take
the view that this is not in anybody’s interest. The
other point, I know, is that he intends to give the
Judicial Studies Board lecture this year which will be
61
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
in March; that will be just under one year since the
new arrangements came into force. That in my
view—although ultimately of course it is for him—is
the minimum time that is appropriate to pass; one
year is not much in a constitution that has been here
forathousandormore,andhewillbeabletoaddress
in that lecture how things are running and how he
seesthem. Over-exposure to themedia, in my view, is
not necessarily—indeed in my view it definitely is
not—in the public interest, but ultimately it is for the
Lord Chief Justice of the day to decide what he
thinks.
Q296 Lord Morris of Aberavon: With respect I tend
to agree withwhat youhavesaid, but bylast October
the date I have here is 11 October 2005, is that right?
Sir Igor Judge: Yes, if you look at page 5—if my
memory is right—there are at least three questions in
a pretty short bit of transcript which are designed to
provoke the Lord Chief Justice to say something
which can be given a headline.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: I have read it. Time after
time after time. Thank you very much.
Q297 Chairman: Sir Igor, one of the things that the
Committee is wrestling with is if the Government set
out to produce somewhat greater separation of
powersbetweentheexecutiveandthejudiciary,isnot
the inevitable consequence of that—and it may be
constitutionallydesirable—thattherewillbeadegree
of tension because the essence of separation is the
creation of tension? What we are wrestling with—
and indeed you are at the very sharp end of—is how
tomanagethattensioninasortofnormative,regular
and appropriate way. Should we not be somewhat
more
philosophical
about
separation
meaning
tension?
Sir Igor Judge: I hope I will not be misquoted, or at
any rate have some sub-editor writing a good
headline about it, but I think a degree of tension is
healthy. We all very loosely say “the Government”,
but in the end Parliament legislates, and then it does
not really matter what the judges think. The judges
apply the law that Parliament has produced. If the
Government has an idea and it seeks the views of the
judges, the judges must express their honest views
and it may therefore be a view that completely
disagrees with the Government and that may create
tension. In the end the Government takes its bill to
Parliament and Parliament decides what the law will
be; I do not find a problem with tension, there are
plenty of situations in which intelligent people can
have diVerent views and express them. For the
moment there is a tension but then, provided you all
recognise they are views honestly expressed, there
should be no more tension. I wonder, My Lord
Chairman, if you would mind if I just say something
slightly more on this general subject of judicial
independence.Itisnolonger—inmyviewitneverhas
been, but this is still my view—a concomitant of
independence that judges should be isolated. I
mentioned to you when dealing with the sentencing
issue the National Criminal Justice Board; I am a
member of that with Lord Justice Gage; we have
judges on NOMS—that is oVender management; we
have judges on the Criminal Justice Council, and on
the Very High Cost Cases review board. The Senior
Presiding Judge is on the ministerial executive board
of the DCA and on the HMCS board, and of course
up and down the country nationally courts boards
have judges on them. They are not executive
members, but they are there to oVer a judicial view
about the practical reality and how a particular
suggestion might work in practice. None of that
impinges on judicial independence. At the end of it
you have expressed your view, account has been
takenofitanditmayormaynotfindfavour;asIsay,
in the end the legislation comes through and we are
consulted.
I
cannot
remember
how
many
consultation papers I received this year, but if I
remembersomeof them: MakingSentencing Clearer,
we responded to that, quashing convictions, how
should we deal with that, rape and the impact of
drink, both in relation to the woman—it is usually a
woman—and in relation to the man. There is even a
paper called Making Sure Crime Doesn’t Pay, which
the judiciary has had to respond to. We expect to
respond to these papers; we do not expect our
response to carry the day; the Government has to
decide what it will put before the two Houses, and so
it goes on. I have meetings, for example, with the
Attorney-General. I saw him on Monday. I can see
no reason why I should not tell you that one of the
things he told us was that he proposed to make a
statement about the evidence of Professor Southall;
that does not impinge on our independence, or his.
He also told us that he was concerned about the way
in which the deployment of judges for dealing with
heavy fraud cases was working; it is a legitimate
concern, he drew it to our attention and that is for us
to deal with. I can tell you that week after week after
week these sorts of discussions are going on at
ministerial level, at oYcial level, and so on. I do not
think myself that expressing our views has created
serious tension and, more important, I do not myself
think that that impinges in any way on my judicial
independence or the acknowledgement by the
minister of it. I am sorry that has taken me so long,
but there is quite a lot of material in this.
Q298 Chairman: It is well worthwhile, Sir Igor, we
are grateful for that, thank you. We will have to
conclude
shortly,
but
just
reverting
to
your
understandable nervousness about exposing the
Lord Chief Justice to loaded questions that are
designed to provoke a visible row of some sort, one
62
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
21 February 2007
Rt Hon Sir Igor Judge, Mr Mike Wicksteed and Mr Peter Farr
of the reactions to not going on the record is to go oV
therecord.Iwasquitedisturbed whenwehadseveral
distinguished media editors to hear that in their
opinion the practice was growing of oV the record
briefings, I willsay by the judiciary butIdo not point
at any particular judge and nor did they. Of course,
this is the world of politics that most people in this
room are very familiar with where you do read the
next morning X’s fury with Y because somebody has
said oV the record, when asked, yes, pretty fed up
aboutthatandthatwastransmutedthenextmorning
tothejudge’sfury.Letmeaskyouverydirectly—and
this is obviously a question for the JCO—what is
your attitude towards the culture of oV the record
briefings by judges?
Sir Igor Judge: Mine is easy: we have to distinguish
between a conversation that I may have—I have
conversations with Mr Rozenberg perhaps and
regard him very highly. I do not regard my
conversations with him as a briefing, they are
discussions about this that and the other. Myself, I
think it is unacceptable for judges to be making
statements to journalists about a proposed policy, a
proposed piece of legislation or indeed one that has
just come into force unattributably, so that it is
printed. If you are going to make any statements of
that kind you should be prepared to accept
responsibilityforthem,butIdonotthinkyoushould
be making them because one day you may very well
be sitting in judgment on the very legislation which
you are criticising. For my part I think oV the record
briefings of the kind that you are asking me about
should not happen. That is my very clear view.
Q299 Chairman: I am delighted to hear that. It is, as
we all know, quite diYcult to distinguish between an
agreeable lunch with Mr Rozenberg subsequently
appearing as background and senior judges are
expressing concern about that. Is that part of a
conversation over lunch or is it an unattributable
briefing?
Sir Igor Judge: I would not expect, if I were to say
something as indiscreet as that, that Mr Rozenberg
would report it at all.
Q300 Chairman: But what about the people sitting
at the next table?
Sir Igor Judge: There is a diVerence, is there not?
There
is
the
legitimate
interest
of
legal
correspondents in the way things are going, and we
have a part to play in that—therewas one newspaper
which had four articles or references to comments by
fourofmycolleagues.Myownviewaboutthat—and
it is personal—is that that is wrong and I feel very
strongly that that is wrong. I do feel very, very much
that we have to bear in mind—I keep saying it—that
you legislate and we then apply the law that you
provide us with.
Q301 Chairman: When you say it is your personal
view, would that be the view of the Judicial
Communications OYce?
Mr Wicksteed: Absolutely, yes.
Q302 Lord Lyell of Markyate: We are all on a
learning curve here. Suddenly judges have got the
Judicial Communications OYce to a degree which
they have not had in the past; ministers, particularly
theLordChancellor—althoughnolongertechnically
head of the judiciary—still have a role to defend the
judiciary and their independence in Parliament, and
I think we are making progress in seeing it working
properly, but there is a bit further to go. Would you
agree?
SirIgorJudge:There isalways progresstobemade—
always—and, yes, this is very new. I meant what I
said earlier: to me a year is a very short time indeed
for very major constitutional changes to bed down
and, if I may say so, I would regard it as rather
reckless to draw final conclusions on the basis of one
year.Weshouldlookatitnowandseewheresteering
should come, see whether we are apparently going
down an inappropriate route, and then stand back
and look at it again a year on. Forming a final view
about this until four or five years have passed might
very well be mistaken and, again, one needs to
remember that in the political world there will be a
General Election before the next five years are up.
There may—I am not advocating this of course—
there may be a change of Government and that may
aVect the way in which the new arrangements work.
I agree with you that there is some way to go—we
might think there is a long way to go—and we
certainly have not reached the stage where I could
confidentlysaytoyouIthinkeverythingisabsolutely
perfect; of course it is not and it never will be.
Q303 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed; it
has been extremely interesting to have you and your
colleagues here. I realise it is not easy; we are taking
a small and tender plant while it is still putting down
roots, heaving it up and trying to look at how it is
growing. Our hope of course is that Parliament can
be part of the solution here rather than part of the
problem,soitisgoodtoseeyouhere.Thankyouvery
much for your evidence.
Mr Wicksteed: Thank you for the opportunity.
63
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH 2007
Present
Bledisloe, V
O’Cathain, B
Goodlad, L
Peston, L
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Smith of Clifton, L
(Chairman)
Windlesham, L
Lyell of Markyate, L
Woolf, L
Morris of Aberavon, L
Examination of Witness
Witness: Professor Dame Hazel Genn, examined.
Q304 Chairman: Good morning, Dame Hazel.
Welcome to the Committee, it is good of you to
come. Could I say that these proceedings are being
filmed for the BBC. Also, could I say to members
of the public who may be with us that there is an
information sheet near the door which relates to the
discussion we are about to have. Dame Hazel, I
wonder if you would be kind enough, given the
television coverage, to identify yourself for the
camera?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I am Hazel Genn,
Professor of Socio-legal studies in the Faculty of
Laws at University College London.
Q305 Chairman: Is there anything you would like
to say to us by way of an opening statement? You
know the ground that we want to cover.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: Thank you for sending
me the questions but I do not think I want to make
a statement, I am happy to answer your questions.
Q306 Chairman: I am very interested by your
academic research and of course you have an
unusual locus of being both, in a sense, part of the
wider judicial scene and yet also a distinguished
academic commentator. In your research, Paths to
Justice, one of the conclusions which struck me
which corresponds with a pretty familiar stereotype
is that people see judges as out of touch with
ordinary people’s lives and this is a long-held
perception or misperception of judges, but at the
same time the YouGov survey in The Telegraph,
which we have seen, shows not only that judges are
absolutely well-trusted but relatively well-trusted
compared
with
other
occupations,
including
Members of Parliament and journalists, and also the
trust in them seems to have increased since 2003. I
wonder how you reconcile these two apparently
disparate pieces of evidence?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I do not see them as
inconsistent. Before I start to say why I do not see
them as inconsistent I would draw your attention to
the fact that I have brought with me some findings
from a more recent piece of work, the Committee
on Standards in Public Life, which asks those
questions. If you look on there, the relative
standing—it is not the standing of judges, it is the
extent to which the public trust the judiciary to tell
the truth as compared with other groups of people—
is actually even better than the YouGov results that
you sent to me. I think what we have got there in
2006 is about 81 per cent of the general population
saying that they would trust judges to tell the truth.
I do not think that the two positions that you have
put to me are inconsistent. I think the first thing that
it is necessary to say is that public attitudes insofar
as we know about them are quite complex, they are
not simple. What we are tackling here are two
diVerent things. When you say “Do you trust judges
to tell the truth” or the public say “I trust judges
to tell the truth”, that is an expression of a basic
confidence in our judiciary which I believe we take
for granted, that the public believe or know that the
judiciary are not corrupt, that they do not tell lies,
that they are independent, the public trusts them to
apply the law impartially, which is what judges are
supposed to do. As I said, I think that we take that
for granted and we criticise judges for other things.
I think if you ask that question in many other
jurisdictions, they would not be able to come up
with 81 per cent of people saying that they trusted
the judiciary in that way. I think that is something
that we forget and one of the things that I will say
later on is that I think it is necessary for us to make
those kinds of things clear and to remind the public
of the extent to which they do have confidence in
the courts in that broader sense. On the other hand,
if you ask people about what is their vision of the
judiciary, how do they characterise the judiciary,
people say that they see them as being rather elderly,
male, rather upper-class and, to be frank, that
would not be an unfair representation. Indeed, even
if you are a woman, like our first lady Law Lord,
if you dress them up in a wig they are going to look
pretty much like an old man, so we do have a
problem with that. The fact that people say, “I think
they seem a bit out of touch, I am not sure that they
really know what goes on in the real world” is not
64
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Professor Dame Hazel Genn
inconsistent with saying “I trust them” and I think
that they do trust them and what we see from these
YouGov polls is that by comparison with other
institutions they trust the judiciary very much. I
think what that is expressing is a basic fundamental
confidence in the justice system, in the courts. Yes,
we can make criticisms about how individual
decisions might be reported, but I think we do need
to remember that and I do not see those two things
as inconsistent. People might say, “I would like to
see a few more women on the bench” and if people
took their wigs oV they might see a few more women
on the bench. They might like to say, “I would like
to see the judiciary more reflective of the diversity
of society”. None of that is inconsistent with saying
“I feel confident about the judiciary that we have”.
Q307 Chairman: That is such a helpful analysis and
I do not want to pick it apart too much but you
have built an awful lot in your answer on that
question, “Do they tell the truth?” I suppose it
would be perfectly possible for people to see judges
as a class of person who you would expect to tell
the truth without necessarily committing yourself to
all those other good qualities that you adumbrated
of impartiality.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think if you look at
the evidence, the question is asked in diVerent ways.
We ask them “Do you trust judges to tell the truth?”
One of the other pieces of evidence that you gave me
is asking the general question, “Do you trust them?”
What I am saying is it is a kind of expression. The
answer to that question is an expression of public
sentiment about the judiciary and you can compare
that, for example, with public sentiment about
politicians or government ministers, or, indeed,
estate agents which come fairly low on that list.
Q308 Chairman: Accepting your description, how
do people arrive, the people who answer opinion
polls, at their perceptions of the judiciary? Very few
people in their lifetimes appear in court in front of
a judge and have a chance to see them in action, so
how do they arrive at these conclusions?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I have got some views
but before I give you the views one of the things that
I want to say, and I think it is important and I think
it is helpful that there is an opportunity to say in
this Committee, is that we are all fumbling a little
bit in the dark here and the reason that we are
fumbling in the dark is that there has been no
sustained tradition of investment in research into
public attitudes to the judiciary. When I was doing
my research on Paths to Justice I was absolutely
staggered at how little information there was about
attitudes to the judiciary in England and Wales. In
other jurisdictions there is a long tradition of taking
the temperature of the public in relation to the
courts and specifically in relation to the judiciary
and we do not have that. I remain staggered that
often when we have conversations about what the
public think about the judiciary, in the end everyone
falls back on those three or four questions that I
asked in Paths to Justice and which have been
repeated
subsequently
by
the
Legal
Services
Research Centre that is always doing those things.
I think it is appalling that we are depending on that
for our knowledge. The other surveys that I have
looked at, like the British Crime Survey, citizenship
surveys, that do test the water a little bit in relation
to public attitudes are always about the criminal
justice system, generally about crime and often
about
sentencing.
We
do not
have
a
good
understanding of what public expectations are, what
they think and how those views are formed. I have
finally brought myself back to your question. How
are those views formed? I think in a rather
haphazard way and I have no doubt, and I know
this is one of the things that is on your mind, that
the media plays a role in shaping public perceptions
about the judiciary. I do not think that people are
taught properly about the justice system, about the
judiciary and about the diVerence between civil and
criminal courts at school, it is not something that
we are brought up on. People grow up in relative
ignorance about what the justice system is there for
and what it does. What people think is that the
justice system is simply about bringing criminals to
justice. When you ask people, as I have done, how
their views are formed they will say, “I do not know,
I suppose it is the media, what I read in the
newspapers and what I see on the television”. The
danger with that is, of course, that the reporting in
the media and representations on the television are
very selective, they are rather haphazard. They focus
very much on criminal courts because that is what
is interesting and that is what is sexy, crime and
criminals. They do not focus particularly on what
happens in all of the other areas of the justice system
that are often very much more important to the lives
of ordinary people. They absorb things from the
newspapers, they watch fictionalised, dramatised
representations of the judiciary and that is how they
form their view. There is something that is a part of
that which is what is it that the media report about
the judiciary and largely the kinds of things they
report are the odd comment that is made in court,
criticising the judiciary occasionally for being a bit
soft or maybe not seeing eye to eye with the
Government, as they do not, on questions about
human rights. What they are not reporting is serial
bad behaviour by the judiciary so the high standards
of the judiciary that we have, their commitment and
professionalism does not give the newspapers that
much material to seriously damage the fundamental
beliefs in our judiciary so we do not have stories
65
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Professor Dame Hazel Genn
about corruption, the way that the public would
learn about it would be through the newspapers.
Q309 Chairman: The media coverage is more
isolated, high profile quirks or incidents than it is of
the assumed sustained professionalism of the
judiciary.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: Yes, because that does
not make news. Atrocity stories make news and
headlines. Where is the headline in this? What is the
handle for this story? A story about a judge
behaving with outstanding levels of professionalism
in court is not going to make news in the same way
as a doctor performing an operation absolutely
beautifully does not make news. That is a fact of
life, it is not just about the judicial system, it is
everywhere else, newspapers have a job to do and
they do their job. If we are saying that is the
principal source of information for the public about
the judiciary, we have to ask questions about what
kind of information we get and whether that is a
satisfactory state of aVairs and I would say
probably not.
Q310 Chairman: One thing I do not want to lose
from your remarks is the point about schools, the
sort
of
work,
for
instance,
the
Citizenship
Foundation has done over the last 20 years or so;
one assumes that should be a plank of citizenship
studies in schools.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: There should, but there
is a lot more to be done on that. There are real
problems in getting education down at that level in
a way that is attractive to young people and engages
their attention. Wearing another hat, I have been
involved in a public legal education task force and
talking to people about the problems of providing
this sort of education and learning in schools and
we have a problem which is that the people who are
in schools who have responsibility for delivering this
learning
themselves
do
not
really
know
the
diVerence between the civil and criminal courts, in
fact they are not sure what civil courts are and they
do not know that we have them. We have people
saying to us, “How can we become better educated
so that we can pass on this information to people
in schools?” I think there is an acceptance that this
needs to be done, that it is not reasonable that
people grow up being able to distinguish between
diVerent varieties of trees but not know that there
is a diVerence between civil and criminal courts.
Q311 Chairman: I cannot resist asking you, since
you are probably a better interpreter of this than
anybody else we can find, what eVect do you think a
programme like Judge John Deed has on the general
public’s perceptions?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think the general
public think that is how judges behave and, of
course, judges are appalled looking at Judge John
Deed
but
where
else
are
they
getting
their
information from? As part of my research I have
talked to people waiting to go into, not so much
courts, but things like tribunals which are very
informal, people sitting around a table, and they
think they are going to go into a room that will have
a judge and a jury in there because the only image
that the public has in their mind is of a crown court
because that is all they see on the TV.
Q312 Chairman: You do not think the fact that
Judge John Deed is constantly slugging it out with
the Lord Chancellor assists the popularity of the
perception?
Professor
Dame
Hazel
Genn:
I
think
the
constitutional significance of that may be lost on the
average viewer.
Q313 Lord
Morris
of
Aberavon:
Professor,
defending the judiciary is an obligation placed on
the Lord Chancellor, ministers generally and the
Lord Chief Justice. Given this evidence that we have
had regarding the disparity in trust, and it is a huge
one, whichever figures you have, with 81 per cent
plus trusting judges to tell the truth and showing
very low esteem for government ministers, would
you not expect the Lord Chief Justice to have a
greater capacity, to be more persuasive to defend the
judiciary, than the Lord Chancellor and other
ministers?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think that is quite a
sophisticated question, I looked at that quite hard
when it was first asked. I think the first thing that
I want to say is that we all have a responsibility to
defend the independence and the reputation of the
judiciary, it matters to all of us, it is extremely
important that the public continues to have high
levels of confidence in the judiciary. I think we all
share that responsibility. As to the question about
where the division of responsibility is between the
Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, these
are new times since the Constitutional Reform Act
and I think, again, there is a shared responsibility.
It is very helpful that these questions are being asked
in this Committee so that we are focusing on the
question of where that responsibility lies and who
has responsibility for what. As to the question of
whether the public is more likely to believe what the
Lord Chief Justice says than the Lord Chancellor,
I do not know, I could not be sure, this would be an
interesting question to ask the public. I think what I
am clear about is that they both have a very
important responsibility and what we have to be
careful about is that things do not fall down the gap
66
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Professor Dame Hazel Genn
on the assumption on both sides that somebody else
is doing it.
Q314 Lord Morris of Aberavon: Are there any
lessons to be learned from the Sweeney case, which
I am sure you are familiar with?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I have read the
transcripts on that, I am not sure that it is for me
to comment specifically on that case. I do have some
views in general about that division of responsibility
and about what the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord
Chancellor need to be doing in terms of public
confidence and I think that there are two issues that
arise which in my reading of the transcripts have got
conflated in your discussions with the people who
have appeared before you. You have got the issue
of fire fighting and damage limitation when there is
a high profile case that hits the press. That is a really
practical, concrete issue that needs to be sorted out
because where there has been misreporting, and
sometimes there is misreporting because the people
reporting it do not understand what is going on, and
it is possible that happened on that occasion, there
needs
to
be
a
system
for
correcting
misapprehensions and there has to be some working
out of where responsibility for that lies. It is not my
job to say it, but it is absolutely clear from that case
that misreporting by the press needs to be corrected
by somebody and whose responsibility that is has to
be worked out. That is the fire fighting and it is a
reactive function but it is very real and it is very
important. There is a second question about a
proactive longer term responsibility for enhancing,
for building public confidence and for educating the
public and I am not sure that I am clear where
responsibility for that lies. Again, I think it is
shared. I think the DCA, the Lord Chancellor and
the Secretary of State for Constitutional AVairs
being the same person, given their responsibility for
the administration of justice, has a responsibility for
fulfilling
that
function.
I
am
talking
about
education, I am talking about research that we
understand public expectations and what we need,
I am talking about outreach work. I think that the
DCA, the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State
for Constitutional AVairs has a responsibility. I
think also the new Judicial OYce, given the Lord
Chief Justice’s new responsibilities as the figurehead
of the judiciary also shares in that responsibility and
that there is potential for proactivity there in
thinking about how the Judicial OYce with
whatever resources it has got, or maybe it needs
more resources to do it, can help first of all to
understand public expectations and perceptions of
the judiciary and what it can do in practical terms
to improve that. I think getting those two things
muddled up is not all that helpful, it needs to be
separated and people have got to sort out where
responsibility lies. I said what you do not want is
it falling down the middle between the two leaving
everyone saying “It is not me”.
Chairman: That is a very important point for the
Committee as a whole.
Q315 Viscount Bledisloe: Lord Morris’s question
contrasted the Lord Chief Justice as a judge with the
Lord Chancellor as a minister with not much public
confidence in them. Is it not the case that at least in
the past the Lord Chancellor has been seen as
something
rather
in
between
and
rather
diVerentiated from other government ministers who
might have rather greater confidence of the public
than ordinary ministers? Is Lord Morris’s worry not
likely to get much worse if the Lord Chancellor
becomes a career minister in the Commons switched
between having been in transport and on his way to
foreign aVairs, shall we say?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think that there could
be an issue there. We have been talking about low
levels of trust in government ministers and in
politicians in general and I do not think that is good,
I think we need to be taking seriously about how
we can build those levels of trust as well. As I said
before, I do not think that the public has a
sophisticated
understanding
of
the
diVerence
between when the Lord Chancellor is being the Lord
Chancellor and when he is being the Secretary of
State for Constitutional AVairs. There is no reason
why they should, but that is not to say that the
public is not capable of understanding if somebody
takes the trouble to explain it. You are really asking
whether or not if the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary
of State for Constitutional AVairs, is somebody in
the Commons who just appears like any other
government minister, whether that might create a
problem, I think it is conceivable that it might but
I have not got any evidence to say yes, definitely
it would.
Q316 Lord
Smith
of
Clifton:
You
largely
anticipated my question with your very full answer.
In your book, Paths to Justice, you drew attention
to “a depth of ignorance about the legal system and
the widespread inability to distinguish between
criminal and civil courts”. You expatiated at some
length on that. Can you, looking ahead, and you
were invited in the last supplementary, say to what
extent do you think the reforms introduced by the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 will help public
understanding of the justice system generally, or do
you think that without more remedial action
ignorance will continue?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think those changes in
themselves are not going to create, suddenly over
night by osmosis, a new understanding of the justice
system. What I was saying was that people do not
67
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Professor Dame Hazel Genn
have a terribly good understanding of the intricacies
of the justice system. I think there were elements in
the changes that took place in particular, for
example, the establishment of an independent
Judicial Appointments Commission, which I think
the public does have some understanding of about
how judges get appointed, and the fact that you now
have a body that is independent of Government is
the sort of thing that will probably help to promote
public confidence. We are not saying the fact that
we have had these constitutional reforms is going to
by itself improve public understanding, no.
Q317 Lord Smith of Clifton: Do you think the
physical separation from here and the formation of
a supreme court will clarify things rather more than
the blurred notion that the House of Lords takes
judicial decisions?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think it would make
it easier for people like me who have to teach the
stuV to explain it, particularly when we are doing it
in other jurisdictions. Being able to point to a very
real physical geographical separation makes it much
easier and takes considerably less explanation than
the sometimes torturous explanation that one had
to give about how we hold the separation of powers
dear and the independence of the judiciary, but the
head of the judiciary happens to be a member of the
government. If we are talking about explaining to
the public, that kind of separation will probably
make things clearer. I would not say that people
were necessarily losing sleep overnight but that is
because people did not necessarily know about it or
did not really understand it.
Q318 Chairman: We certainly want to make the life
of distinguished academics easier.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: Thank you.
Q319 Lord
Peston:
You
used
the
expression
“People not losing sleep”. Obviously we on this
Committee think what we are discussing matters
and you as a professor of law think this matters, but
has anybody done any research with the public
saying “Do you think it matters”? In other words,
there is a diVerence between do you trust the judges,
but do you care anyway?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: You should not confuse
not knowing in detail with not caring because I
think the public does care very much and one of the
things that I said in the Paths to Justice book was
that
although
people
did
not
have
a
good
understanding, they have a view and they do care
about the judiciary and about matters to do with the
justice system. It does matter to people, it is part of
a sense of well-being and a kind of confidence that
we live in a fair society and that our rights can be
protected. When I say people were not losing sleep,
the contradiction between having a head of the
judiciary, which is supposed to be independent who
is also a member of the government, the detail of
that is not something that I think members of the
public would naturally understand very well. If you
were to explain it to people, and people are not
stupid by any means, people would be able to
understand what the situation was previously and
my view is, but I am only speculating here, they
would feel more comfortable with that kind of clear
separation.
Q320 Lord Peston: What you are saying is that
there is research evidence that shows that these are
matters which the public cares about.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think there is research
evidence that shows that the public cares a lot about
the justice system, yes.
Q321 Lord Goodlad: Could I ask Professor Genn to
what extent you think that the Lord Chief Justice
and
the
Judicial
Communications
OYce
are
fulfilling their mission to enhance public confidence
in Judicial OYce holders and what, if anything, they
could do more of or better?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think it is early days,
they are finding their feet and they have got a lot to
do. There has been a massive shift in responsibility
and administrative responsibilities and the like.
There is potential there in the future and, I
suggested this earlier on, first of all, for dealing with
the fire fighting issue, trying to correct misreporting
of decisions or misunderstandings about judicial
decisions, so I think there is a role there for the
Judicial OYce. I think there is a longer term role,
and I would hope that they would see that there is
a longer term role in terms of being proactive. We
have not got a lack of public confidence but
enhancing public confidence and making sure that
it stays high in the future, there is potential there. I
do not know whether they are currently exploring
that but I think, as I said, there is a shared
responsibility between DCA and the Secretary of
State for Constitutional AVairs as the person
responsible for the functioning of the justice system
and the courts but also for the Judicial OYce which
has responsibility for the judiciary. I think there is
potential and I mentioned things about education
and about outreach. They have a very good website
but it does not come up immediately if you put in
“Judicial OYce”. There are things that individual
judges do on their own initiative in their local
communities, but I think there is scope for them to
do more and I hope that they will do more in the
future. There is a question about resources and how
many other things they have got to do. It is
important that somebody has responsibility for
projecting positive images of the judiciary. If we can
68
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Professor Dame Hazel Genn
expect the newspapers to rather relish bad news
stories the question is who has the responsibility for
providing a counterbalance to that and I do not see,
and when I wrote Paths to Justice I felt this quite
passionately,
where
the
responsibility
is
for
providing those positive images and I am not sure
that I see it now. This kind of conversation in raising
that issue is quite helpful.
Q322 Lord Goodlad: Are there any comparable
organisations in other countries which you know of
that we might learn lessons from?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: That is a good question.
I cannot immediately bring something to mind, but
what I can tell you is that there is a much greater
depth of research in North America and Canada on
public attitudes to the judiciary, expectations and
experiences of the public in the justice system than
we have in this country, particularly in civil justice
areas as well as criminal.
Chairman:
I
have
got
a
couple
of
quick
supplementaries on Lord Goodlad’s question.
Q323 Baroness O’Cathain: I was very interested in
what you said about the Judicial Communications
OYce website. We had evidence from them at our
last session, which I thought was absolutely
stunning and the website is terrific. Do you see a role
for yourself, wearing your academic hat, of trying
to influence a government department like, for
example, the Department for Education that this
website should be readily available or, indeed, even
as part of the curriculum because that would in
eVect make the young people more conscious? Is
there something there that we could get which could
break this whole problem with the young?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think there is a lot that
could be done. As I said, wearing my other hat,
leading
this
public
legal
education
link
empowerment task force, one of the things that we
are thinking about is precisely how do we manage
education, not just in schools but throughout, how
do we manage information and education about the
justice system so that people understand what it is
there for and what the potential is and also to make
it less alien, to have a sense that it has a protective
function, not only a punitive function.
Q324 Lord Lyell of Markgate: I thought you put
your finger on it when you said, “We all share
responsibility to explain the system”. Would you
not agree that if there are shortcomings, if senior
ministers (as happens from time to time) and middle
ranking ministers pitch in and get it wrong and put
in strong criticisms, you can hardly blame the press
for being the principal cause of the problem.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I am not sure what you
are driving at.
Q325 Lord Lyell of Markgate: I am driving at the
criticisms by the Home Secretary and Vera Baird in
relation to the Sweeney case.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I think you are right. I
have looked at the discussions you had about
tensions between the judiciary and the executive.
When ministers dive in and criticise the judiciary for
particular decisions, I personally do not find that
terribly helpful. I think it could have a corrosive
eVect although, given what we have said about
public views of politicians as compared with the
judiciary, if what has been criticised is the judiciary
what is seen as protection. In that case there was a
criticism about it being too soft, but in other cases
you get criticisms of the judiciary for insisting on
protecting fundamental rights and I do not think
that the public would necessarily react badly to that.
I am straying away from what I would care to
speculate on. The point I want to make is that we
all share the responsibility. It matters to us all. We
have to think about how we criticise particular
decisions.
Q326 Lord Woolf: The matters to which you have
referred are extremely important. I do not want to
gainsay that in any way. But is there any danger of
a system such as ours, which has grown up over the
centuries, getting too fixed on reforming, because it
is said that is what the public wants and, on the
other hand, not reforming because that is what the
public wants. I and others holding similar oYces to
my own have been very anxious to get rid of wigs,
especially in civil cases, but the Lord Chancellor
went out on a consultation on that and there was
an overwhelming response by the public that they
wanted to keep wigs. Should that influence us? To
take another example, that of the Supreme Court.
One of the arguments advanced for the Supreme
Court is one which you have echoed; namely, that
it is easier to understand if you have a Supreme
Court. To what extent should that influence us?
Now the Attorney General’s oYce, which is, again,
a great historic oYce, is very much under attack. It
is being said that the public do not understand how
a minister can wear two hats.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: Certainly public opinion
is a factor that should be taken into account.
Nobody wants policy-making which is a knee-jerk
reaction to immediate events. We have all seen, at
times, that people have jumped to policy because of
particular events. Sometimes what the public wants,
particularly when we do not especially know what
the public wants, is used as a way of justifying doing
certain things because there are political imperatives
to do that. As far as the constitutional reforms were
concerned, there were a number of elements in that.
I have said before that I think the establishment of
an independent Judicial Appointments Commission
69
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Professor Dame Hazel Genn
is probably something that would be very much in
keeping with what the public would feel was
appropriate. I am not sure that there was necessarily
a strong body of evidence about what the average
citizen thought about the kind of confusion of roles
as far as the Lord Chancellor is concerned or the
confusion over when is the House of Lords the
Upper Chamber in Parliament and when is the
House of Lords the Appellant Judicial Committee
and all of that. I do not think you can just be
making policy on the basis of what the public does
or does not think, although it has to be a factor in
that. There are other questions there that I think are
not for me.
Q327 Baroness O’Cathain: It is far too early to
make any assessment of the Judicial Appointments
Commission
on
public
confidence
and
understanding in the system, but how long do you
think it will be before we can gauge the success?
What, if any, correlation is there between increasing
public confidence in the judiciary, which we have
just noted, and a greater diversity on the bench (in
terms of sex, race and educational background)?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: I am not here today as
a representative of the Judicial Appointments
Commission.
If
you
are
asking
me
as
a
Commissioner what the Judicial Appointments
Commission is there for, we know it is there to
appoint judges of the highest quality, on the basis
of merit, from the widest range of backgrounds. So
long as the Judicial Appointments Commission
continues to appoint judges of the highest possible
calibre—because, as I said at the beginning, that is
the most important thing—that will help to support
public confidence. The other thing we are trying to
do is to show that we have fair and open processes
that the public can perhaps better understand. I
think that would help to improve public confidence.
We are also committed to encouraging applicants
from the widest range of backgrounds so long as
they are eligible. So long as we succeed in having
processes that are absolutely fair to all of those
people who apply, then, inevitably, people of a
wider range of backgrounds will get to be appointed
to the judicial bench. I do not think there is a
problem
with
public
confidence
that
needs
improving but there is an interest in seeing a more
reflective
judiciary,
and
that
should
happen,
inevitably, given our commitment to fair processes
and encouraging applications from a wide range
of people.
Q328 Baroness O’Cathain: Do you think it would
help to achieve the objectives, the very laudable
objectives which you have set yourself and, indeed,
that have been set for you, if people knew more
about you and knew that you were not actually
government appointees, as such, but you were
apolitical, independent—fiercely so. I know you do
not want to be in the spotlight on that but there is
so much anti-quango attitude going around that I
think there might be merit in considering putting
out more about what the Judicial Appointments
Commission is and who are the members of it.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: If you are saying that
from your perspective there needs to be more
information, I hear what you say. I think we have
a very user-friendly website. We are taking very
seriously our outreach responsibility. Are you
talking about making ourselves better known to
those who might be eligible for judicial oYce or to
the public in general?
Q329 Baroness O’Cathain: I mean the latter,
because I am sure that people who are eligible for
oYce know all about it because they would have as
an objective to try to become a judge. I do think the
latter is important. In fact, I would go so far as to
say there are many people in the Palaces of
Westminster who do not know.
Professor
Dame
Hazel
Genn:
That
is
helpful
feedback. Thank you. I will take that back.
Q330 Chairman: If, in the way you have described
through the Judicial Appointments Commission, we
end up with what you rather interestingly call a
more “reflective” judiciary—which is probably a
better word than “representative”—do you believe
that would further increase confidence in the
judiciary?
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: From the research I
have done—and here I am depending on the
research I have done—I would say there are sections
of the public who would feel more comfortable
about the justice system if they walked into courts
that looked more diverse, that reflected more the
diversity of the society in which we live. That does
not mean to say that they do not trust the justice
system but they would feel more comfortable about
that. From that point of view, that would help to
enhance confidence in certain sections in society.
Interestingly, there are some minority groups which
have higher levels of confidence in the judiciary than
the
white
majority,
but
there
are
sections,
particularly in relation to the criminal courts, which
have some historic concerns and I think it would
probably help.
Q331 Lord Windlesham: May I ask you whether
you think that Parliament could or should have any
role in improving understanding of the judiciary and
the relationships between the judges and elected
politicians?
70
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Professor Dame Hazel Genn
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: Going back to my
shared responsibility point, I think we need to take
seriously the fact that we all have a responsibility.
It is hard to think in practical terms what we might
do but this kind of conversation, given the fact that
it is to some extent publicised, is very helpful. It
helps to focus. You have had some very interesting
evidence given to you. You have had some
extremely coherent and elegant statements about the
relationship between the judiciary and the executive
and about the constraints on the judiciary. There is
a lot of material in there that is not going to find
its way particularly into the public domain. It may
sit on your website but the average person is not
going to find it, and so it may be that you could
think about what you might do with the material
you have gathered to use it. There is some really
interesting material in those transcripts that would
Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Paul Dacre, Editor, Daily Mail, examined.
Q333 Chairman: Good morning. Welcome, Mr
Dacre. I know you are a busy man. It is good of
you to come and share your thoughts with us. We
appreciate it. This evidence session is going to be
televised for the BBC, so I wonder if you would be
good enough for the cameras to identify yourself.
Mr Dacre: My name is Paul Dacre. I am editor of
the Daily Mail and Editor in Chief of Associated
Newspapers.
Q334 Chairman: Thank you. Is there anything you
would like to say? You know the general area of
interests and we have indicated some of the
questions.
Mr Dacre: That is very nice of you but I am just
happy to answer your questions.
Q335 Chairman: Let me plunge in. One of the
questions on the mind of this Committee—and we
have just been having some evidence on this before
you joined us—is how the British public see the
judges, particularly now, in this era of constitutional
innovation, where there is greater
separation
between the judiciary and the executive in the shape
of
the
Government.
The
question
that
is
preoccupying us is how the public see the judges. I
just wonder, from your lofty editorial perch, both
at Associated Newspapers and at the Daily Mail,
about your own opinion of the way the public see
the judiciary.
Mr Dacre: Firstly, I think the public still have huge
faith
in
the
independence
and
integrity
and
uncorruptibility of the British judiciary. I do not
think that can be said loud enough. Having said
that, if I am being honest I suspect that many of our
readers and many members of the public are slightly
be very helpful in explaining to the public certain
aspects of the relationship that they would not
understand at the moment.
Q332 Lord Windlesham: It is encouraging that
representation on the press benches is considerably
greater at the moment on this issue than it is on
many, many other matters which come before
parliamentary select committees. Thank you very
much.
Professor Dame Hazel Genn: Thank you.
Chairman: Could I thank you on behalf of the
Committee. I think you wrote your own encomium
in terms of “coherent” and “eloquent”. You have
greatly assisted our work. Thank you very much. If
you have any subsequent thoughts, we would be
very pleased to have them. Thank you.
confused about the judges these days. They see, with
increasing frequency, decisions made by elected
governments being overturned by the judiciary; they
see increasingly controversial decisions being made
by judges, perhaps political judgments being made
by judges, which fly in the face of what they perceive
as national interests. They see an increasingly
lenient judiciary, handing down lesser and lesser
sentences for what many regard as serious crimes. I
think they are confused. They still have great faith
in the judiciary but there are worries that it is not
reflecting their values and their instincts.
Q336 Chairman: It is interesting that in that answer
you, in a sense, ran together the political and
judicial dimension. One of the things that is
exercising the Committee is, given what a strongly
partisan adversarial political culture we have in this
country, is it possible that the reporting of judicial
decisions is assimilated into what I will call, in
shorthand, “political reporting”, that it becomes
part of a political narrative of a struggle of ideas, a
struggle for power, rather than being seen for what
it is: an area circumscribed by law itself? I think
there may be a danger that it is seen as part of the
glamorous and hard-pitched political struggle in the
widest sense rather than having a steer of its own.
Mr Dacre: Forgive me, my Lord Chairman, are you
talking about the reporting?
Q337 Chairman: I am talking about the reporting
and, therefore, ultimately the perception.
Mr Dacre: Newspapers are not immune to battles
between politicians and judges, and views expressed
by politicians and controversial decisions made by
judges. I would like to think that our newspapers
71
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Mr Paul Dacre
report factually and comment freely. But there is no
doubt about it, the relationship between the
executive and the judiciary has become a story and
it is possibly creating a gladiatorial sense about
some of the reporting that might be causing
anxieties on the judicial side.
Q338 Lord Windlesham: Is that more so than in
the past?
Mr Dacre: I would certainly think so, yes. I certainly
think so.
Q339 Lord Windlesham: Causes?
Mr Dacre: The elephant in the room is the Human
Rights Act, which, it is no secret, we believe has
placed the judges in an impossible position, whereby
it is leading to them making political judgments
which is setting them against the politicians.
Q340 Chairman: Perhaps we could come on to the
Human Rights Act in a moment because it is
something on which we would like to have your
views. One of the things that is of concern to the
Committee is the fact that it is not appropriate most
of the time for judges themselves to get involved in
the adversarial combat. In a sense, as we have
identified, it is extraordinarily diYcult for judges to
answer back and in many ways inappropriate for
them to answer back if attacked. I wonder to what
extent you feel and journalists feel that it is fair
game to attack individual judges, understanding
that, unlike a politician or even a private citizen,
they are not expected to and nor is it appropriate for
them to jump into the ring and start punching back.
Mr Dacre: There are two prongs to that question. I
am not sure in a modern world—and I am not
dogmatic on this—that judges can any longer adopt
the position that they cannot explain their actions.
It seems to me, when there are very controversial
judgments, it is beholden to them to make sure they
explain fully their position on these, otherwise it is
going to lead to all kinds of misunderstandings. As
to whether judges are fair game, my instinct is that,
for years, judges have enjoyed immunity from
criticism in the press but, in a changing age, a 24-
hour media age, an age of instant news, an age in
which there is generally a lack of reverence, judges
must learn to expect more criticism and will need to
think through how they are going to respond to
that. I know you say you want to come back to the
Human Rights Act but it seems to me that if the
judges—and this is a matter of opinion—are making
political judgments, then, I am afraid, if they are
making political judgments they are going to have
to be held more accountable and they are going to
be scrutinised more. I am afraid that is the way it
is. If they are making more and more lenient
sentences—and I know it is not the judges, I know
it is the sentencing guidelines, I know it is the
politicians—they are going to have to explain their
position on this more vocally and more lucidly.
What mechanisms they might choose for doing that
is for a bigger conversation, perhaps.
Q341 Chairman: I am glad you acknowledge that a
lot of these sentencing issues are to attack the judge
for administering the law within the guidelines
provided by the Government. It suggests to the
layman, let alone to a committee like this, that it is
the Government who should be in the sights of those
criticising rather than the judges doing their job.
Mr Dacre: If I may humbly say so, that is correct,
yes. But perception is everything and therefore the
judges need to address that, do they not? They need
to get their message across.
Q342 Baroness O’Cathain: How can they?
Mr Dacre: Far be it for me to give them advice but
the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General, it
seems to me, have become too politicised. The Chief
Justice, I suspect, is going to have to assume more
and more of a role of speaking up for the judiciary.
I do not know. Senior judges, maybe they can speak
up for the judiciary. We live in an age, I am afraid,
of televisual communication: if you do not get the
message across, you are losing the perception war.
Q343 Chairman: It is a shame that you missed—
although I know how busy you are—the previous
witness, Dame Hazel Genn, who was saying that we
all (gesturing at us as well) share a responsibility for
seeing that the very qualities you started with as to
why the judiciary is admired (its independence, its
impartiality, its special position) are not damaged.
Because, if we damage it, we fatally damage one of
the elements of our public life.
Mr Dacre: I could not agree with you more. If I
could be so bold as to say, the free press needs an
independent judiciary in the extreme. If I may also
be so bold, the judiciary needs a free press to
support it against an over-powerful executive. The
two can help each other.
Q344 Chairman: One of your very entertaining
columnists, Allison Pearson, whose articles I always
enjoy personally, criticised the trial judge in the
Sweeney case in these terms—and, as you say,
criticism in a post-deferential society must be
expected: “Judge Williams and his kind”—which I
guess means the rest of the judiciary—“just don’t get
it, do they? Cloaked in a little erminetrimmed
authority, these men . . . . show contempt for the
British public”. Of course, he was following
sentencing guidelines, so, in retrospect, does that
seem part of the mutual responsibility: of judges for
72
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Mr Paul Dacre
seeing that we have a free press and the free press
for seeing that people understand what judges do?
Mr Dacre: I am glad you brought that up and I have
obviously given this some thought. The first thing I
would like to say is the obvious: Allison Pearson is
a commentator. She is a columnist; she is not a
reporter. I took the precaution of bringing the Daily
Mail’s news report of that Monday on this very
contentious decision and in my view it was a
classically
fair
piece
of
reporting.
The
sixth
paragraph of this story read: “But Judge John
GriYth Williams QC said he had no choice but to
reduce the tariV in the light of Sweeney’s guilty plea.
Sentencing guidelines introduced in 2004 meant the
judge had to cut a further third oV the tariV which
would previously have been nine years. That made
the tariV six years but a further reduction was made
for time served.” That was very high up in the copy
and the rest of the story is then reaction to the
judge’s comments. Allison Pearson is a brilliant
columnist whose genius, brilliance, is to connect
with millions of middle-class women in Britain,
which she does very successfully. I do not believe
that there was a middle-class woman in Britain that
Tuesday who did not feel sick in their stomach at
reading that a man with 18 previous convictions,
who had kidnapped a three-year old little child and
subjected her to the most awful three-hour ordeal,
who was out on semi parole at the time, then only
got five and a quarter years because he had pleaded
guilty, despite the fact that he had been caught red-
handed—red-handed—in the car and pleading
guilty to me and to most people was an utter
sophistry. All I can say—and you may say that
judges cannot do this—is that the judge in that case
should have been more media savvy. Indeed, I think
the judges do need to learn to be more media savvy
for the age we live in. I think the judge should have
anticipated that storm and should have gone out of
his way to explain himself. He should have said, in
passing
this
sentence:
“Many
of
you
feel
astonishment and rage at this, that a man who has
done this is only getting five and a quarter years. I
refer to the fact that I am bound by reporting
restrictions and this issue should be taken up with
the politicians and the law makers in this country.”
I have read the reports of the case and I do not think
the
judge
said
that.
He
allowed
this
misunderstanding to mushroom. Of course it was
compounded by a minister and a junior minister
diving in opportunistically to exploit it, but, again,
if I may be so bold, when that situation was running
out of control it would have been helpful if someone
like the Lord Chief Justice had gone on television
and said, “Look, we must get this in perspective.”
Q345 Viscount Bledisloe: It would appear, Mr
Dacre, that you thought that maybe the judiciary
should be more proactive in dealing with your
comments. In the light of the fact that you accept
that Judge Williams had no alternative but to pass
this sentence, would you therefore have regarded it
as perfectly reasonable if he had sued your
newspaper for libel? You said he showed contempt
to the public. He did what he was bound to do.
Mr Dacre: I do not think that is libellous, with great
respect. It is comment really. We are still free to
comment. Going back to that story, the irony of this
situation is that Allison Pearson is a very liberal
lady, a very liberal columnist. Goodness knows
what some of the Daily Mail’s columnists might
have said. I would refer you, however, if you
thought she was tough, to The Sun of that day. The
banner headline on the front page was “Guilty as
charged.” And that is referring to the judge. “Sack
the softies” is their inside story. Their leader read:
“What truly beggars belief is the arrogance of judges
in their mink-lined ivory towers who leave the rest
of us to cope with the real crisis of soaring crime
. . . .. Judges are a law unto themselves. Far from
understanding the public outrage, they round on
The Sun for daring to raise the issue at all. What
would the ignorant public know about the delicate
balance between guilty and punishment? How dare
we question their lofty rulings or their right to sit
on the bench until they fall oV it? As things stand,
judges can cock it up every time they sit on the
bench and frequently do but he or she is immune
from the sack unless caught with his pants down or
fingers in the till.” I would humbly suggest that Ms
Pearson was very moderate in her views.
Q346 Viscount Bledisloe: That only seems to me to
demonstrate that there were other papers that Judge
Williams could have sued as well.
Mr Dacre: I very much doubt it. I bow to your
superior knowledge of jurisprudence but I do believe
comment is free in this country.
Q347 Chairman:
Reading
The
Sun,
you
are
astounded at your own moderation!
Mr Dacre: I am, yes.
Q348 Lord Lyell of Markyate: The Department of
Constitutional
AVairs,
in
its
Review
of
the
Implementation of the Human Rights Act in July last
year concluded that “negative and damaging myths
prevail about the Human Rights Act” and it
suggests that the media were responsible. Do you
agree with this assessment?
Mr Dacre: The media, of course, are always
responsible in this country. They always want to
shoot the messenger. No, I do not accept that, I am
afraid. There are some papers that are critical of the
Human Rights Act; there are others who are
passionately in favour of it. The BBC, which is the
most powerful voice in Britain, which dwarfs the

executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Mr Paul Dacre
influence of Fleet Street, is very pro Europe and very
pro the Human Rights Act. So I do not blame the
media. I blame the Human Rights Act for placing
judges in a very diYcult position.
Q349 Lord Lyell of Markyate: In part, in relation
to the Human Rights Act, has it not stood up for
a good many liberties, like the right to a fair trial?
Mr Dacre: Yes. But, I am afraid, if I am being
honest, I have referred to taking decisions that
overturn decisions taken by law makers and I have
seen the huge and significant impacts the Human
Rights legislation has had on my own industry. I
believe it is both worrying for my industry in terms
of press freedom and worrying for the slight wedge
it is driving and the anxiety it is driving in relations
between the judiciary and judges, because more and
more we are witnessing the emergence of an
aggressive, judge-made privacy law based on case
law. We have seen some astonishing decisions which
are overturning freedoms which we have had for
decades. This is being done without any recourse to
Parliament. We were assured when the Human
Rights came in that it would not lead to the
introduction of a privacy law and we are seeing this.
I do worry that this is leading to some of the angst
between the media and the judiciary. Again, they are
being put in a position in which I do not think they
should have been put.
Q350 Chairman: Could I just ask you whether you
think the Constitutional Reform Act with this
greater separation between the judiciary and the
executive has also aVected relationships between the
media and the judiciary? “Relationships” may be
the wrong word, but the way in which the media see
and report upon the judiciary. Do you think that
has been aVected in any way by the passage of the
Constitutional Reform Act?
Mr Dacre: I do not really think so. Are you referring
to the Judicial Communications OYce?
Q351 Chairman: That, as a manifestation of this
greater separation, they now need to explain
themselves from their own oYces.
Mr Dacre: I have spoken to my news desk about
this. Our view is it does an okay job. It gives a nuts
and bolts background to issues. It is employed by
good enough people but they are journalists and so
they do not really have an understanding of the
most controversial issues of the day. I suspect in the
Craig Sweeney case that the particular oYce which
you people perhaps would have hoped would have
played a role was virtually useless. Virtually
everyone said they did not know what the judge’s
thinking
was.
Anyway,
again,
anonymous
spokesmen in a modern communications world are
virtually useless: you need a flesh and blood face to
go on television or the radio to put the case.
Q352 Chairman: It was one of the very powerful
points you made earlier in this evidence that the
judges need to work out more eVectively how to
communicate, how to find a spokesman, how to
handle the media, how to make the case, both the
general case and the specific one. You have made
that point but I think you are saying that the
Judicial Communications OYce, although it is not
hindering that process, has not made any enormous
diVerence in your perception.
Mr Dacre: That is a fair summary, yes.
Q353 Lord Woolf: Do you think there is any
danger, if the judiciary become overactive in the
fields we have been talking about, which are very
diYcult ones for the judiciary, of their being sucked
further into the dispute and in fact damaging their
image of being impartial?
Mr Dacre: Could I just digress for a moment?
Forgive me, because I meant to mention this earlier
to you. Because one knew that one was coming to
this Committee, the Daily Mail commissioned a poll
into what the British public thought of the judiciary.
We have not carried the poll, we thought that would
be discourteous, but we may well carry it after my
appearance at this Committee. You might be
interested in some of the bullet points. The poll
suggests a lack of public trust in the judiciary. Most
strikingly, only 18 per cent have faith that the
sentences they want passed against criminals will be
reflected by the courts. Only 36 per cent said judges
could be trusted to put the interests of ordinary
people first compared to those of minority groups.
In the poll some 56 per cent said judges generally
do not understand the lives of normal people and
58 said they do not understand the impact crime has
on their lives. An overwhelming 75 per cent said
sentences were too lenient. Only three per cent said
punishments were too harsh, while 18 per cent
considered them about right. Bearing in mind
Allison Pearson: women were even more concerned
than men, with 77 per cent criticising too lenient
punishments, compared to 74 per cent for men. The
poll said some 62 per cent of people of all ages said
they would disagree with any judge who said
sentencing burglars and robbers to a community
punishment was a better option. Some 43 per cent
said judges were more concerned with the rights of
minorities than ordinary people. Some 58 per cent
said terror suspects were put first, compared to 32
per cent who said that the right balance was struck.
In the poll, some 56 per cent said judges generally
do not understand the lives of normal people, and
58 per cent feel they do not understand the impact
crime has on their lives. An overwhelming 68 per
74
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Mr Paul Dacre
cent said, now that judges exercise more political
power, the public should have the right to know
more about their lives and opinions. Two out of
three, 64 per cent, said that senior judges should be
subject, as they are in the US, to a vetting process
by MPs before their appointment. The same
percentage, 64 per cent, said judges should be
appointed for fixed terms. That was a pukka poll,
conducted by ICM between March 2 and 4 of over
1,000 people, which is an acceptable number for a
valid poll.
Q354 Chairman: I do not want to interrupt your
answer, but, just noting that with great interest,
since you have introduced this into your evidence,
and it is very interesting—it does not entirely square
with some of the other polling evidence we have
heard—but I take it as a serious poll, seriously
conducted—would it be possible to share that with
the Committee?
Mr Dacre: Yes, and I would do so before we used
it in the paper.
Q355 Chairman: We are very grateful. Thank you.
I am sorry, I did not mean to interrupt.
Mr Dacre: To try to answer your question, firstly I
would suggest that the poll provides you with some
fairly powerful indicators that you have quite a job
of communicating to do. I would also say you need
to be aware that, whatever Allison Pearson says,
politicians say in much more robust language about
the activities of judges. I have heard Home
Secretaries on both sides of the divide speak in terms
that certainly would be libellous, with great respect.
It goes back to this matter of where the line is drawn
between independence and accountability and what
mechanisms you use to get your side across. I am
very sure of one thing: you are not getting your side
across and you need to do. You need to address it.
Q356 Lord Woolf: I was seeking to get your answer
on whether you think the judges are the right people
to do the act which is needed to redress this
information you provide. There is a danger of
drawing them into—
Mr Dacre: I understand that but surely the senior
members of the judiciary can take a magisterial and
Olympian role here. You do have that freedom
without
destroying
the
independence
and
accountability of judges below them. Without being
silly, could I throw back the question at you? Who
do you think should represent them? Clearly the
Lord Chancellor cannot any more. Clearly the
Attorney
General—particularly
this
Attorney
General—cannot. Is there some constitutional
mechanism, a new creature you can create in a
constitutional role, who can speak up for the judges
without being seen to damage the independence of
the judges? I do not know the answer.
Q357 Lord Woolf: And I am not giving evidence!
Mr Dacre: No. I was seeking to tap into your
superior knowledge, but anyway . . .
Q358 Lord Peston: I am very interested in the
survey that you told us about. I am glad you are
going to leave it. I was not very clear entirely what
you think follows from it. Although I do not have
it in front of me, it seems that that survey should
be addressed to our political masters, not to the
judges at all. Most of them sound like things that
require particularly the House of Commons and the
Government to do something about them rather
than the legal profession.
Mr Dacre: Except, as I keep saying, the perception
is that it is the judges’ fault. That might be terribly
unfair, but you have to address that.
Q359 Lord Peston: If you take the one on vetting,
for example, one can see the argument here but
surely that is an argument that has to be put before
politicians.
Mr Dacre: Yes.
Q360 Lord Peston: And some of the others have to
be put before politicians. I am really going back to
Lord Woolf’s point. I certainly think the judges
oughttocommunicatebetter,thatisnottheproblem,
but they are not in a position to solve problems. If
there are problems, they are not the ones who have
the solutions to hand, are they? It is the politicians
who have the solutions.
Mr Dacre: Yes, but in the way of the world it is up to
the senior members of the judicial trade to make sure
this message is communicated to the politicians.
Q361 Chairman: I would like to go back to your
answer to Lord Lyell, if I may, on the Human Rights
Act. You have made it pretty plain that you are not
a great enthusiast and in some ways you are critical
of theHumanRightsAct.Forgivemyignorance,but
is that an editorial line of the Daily Mail: we do not
like the Human Rights Act?
Mr Dacre: I think it fair to say that over the last 15
years the Daily Mail has been in the Eurosceptic
camp of British journalism. Vast areas of British
journalism are not in that camp, mainly the BBC. I
think it fair to say that we have been very doubtful
about theHuman RightsAct fromeven before itwas
introduced into British legislation. That is our
editorial comment line. If you are asking me if that
view is reflected by all our columnists, I would have
to answer no. Some of them support it, some of them
donot. Ithink it is abit of amyththatthe Daily Mail
has a bit of a line that permeates the whole paper.
75
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Mr Paul Dacre
Q362 Chairman: We of course would not know
exactlyhowthatworks,butifacolumnistorreporter
cameupwithawarmendorsementofthewayinwhich
the Human Rights Act had helped some oppressed
minorityorindividual,wouldthatbespiked?Wouldit
appearinthepaper?
Mr Dacre: A reporter would not come out with that
view.Areporterreports;hedoesnotgiveviews.Ihave
referredtotheSweeneycase.Ifyoucomparethatwith
The Sun’s version, it is, as I say, a model of great
classical, fair, objective reporting. To put it another
way: I employ some of the best columnists in Fleet
Street—I say, modestly. But we do. Great minds.
Greatoriginalminds.Agreatabilitytocommunicate.
I am thinking of one, who it would not be fair to
mention,andIwouldbesurprisedtolearnthathewas
notagreatsupporteroftheHumanrightsAct.Hehas
total freedom to express his views, as do all our
columnists.IfyouthinkIcancontrolsomeofthevery
headstrong and independent-minded individuals I
have on my columnists’ rota, you are living under a
misapprehension. You really are. I repeat, in the
editoriallineandintermsoftheleadercolumn,weare
consistentlyagainsttheHumanRightsAct.
Chairman:Thankyouformakingthatclear.
Q363 LordMorris ofAberavon:MrDacre,Iamsure
youwould agreewiththefundamentalimportanceof
judicial independence. There is a cry from some for
greater accountability of judges. Can they be
reconciledoraretheycompatible?
MrDacre:ItisverydiYcult,isitnot?ItisverydiYcult.
They certainly should not be accountable to
politicians, thatis forsure. Ithink Iwould go backto
what I said before. If the Human Rights Act has
placed judges in the position where they are making
more and more contentious decisions, decisions that
seem to fly in the face of strongly held views of
politicians, of the populace at large, then I think the
demandsforjudgestobeaccountableisgoingtogrow.
Astowhetherthatisahealthythingornot,Isuspectit
is not. I repeat, judges have been put in that position,
whichIthinkisundesirable.
Q364 Lord Lyell of Markyate: Perhaps some of the
judges’ decisions on terrorism may have been
criticised by your paper, I am not sure, but if the
Governmentofthiscountrypassedlawswhichlocked
people up without trial for indefinite periods I would
expecttheDailyMailtospeakupagainstit.
Mr Dacre: I can send them to you. I think we have
written a lot of leaders supporting the judiciary and
the independence of the judiciary. I passionately
believe the free press needs a strong judiciary, I really
do. I do worry that the press are not quite getting the
supportfromthejudiciaryitdeservesatthemoment.I
amsorry,couldyourepeatyourquestion.
Q365 LordLyellofMarkyate:Ifyoutakethepeople
who were locked up in Belmarsh for three years
withouteverbeingbroughttotrialandthejudgessaid
itwouldnotdo—
MrDacre:TheDailyMaildidsupportthejudiciaryon
this and we have been on the side of civil liberties in
this. I dofear that the more terroristbombs which go
oV,the morethese civillibertiesaregoing tobeunder
huge threat. We have not been supportive of judges
where they have seemed to take perverse decisions
overimmigration,asylum,shamweddingsandthings
likethat.Wehavebeencriticalofthose.Butsuccessive
Home Secretaries have tried to get hold of this
shambles and at every turn have been overturned by
the judges.Myown view, for whatitis worth—andit
is probably worth very little—is that judges make
wonderful
decisions
in
isolation,
which
are
intellectually very pure, but they do not have the
mindset, because they do not have the knowledge of
how ordinary people think, to place them in the large
context of national security, immigration and things
likethat. Idonotknow whatthe answeris therebut I
makeitasanobservation.
Q366 Lord Goodlad: Do you think the judges ought
torespondtopublicopiniononthatratherthanapply
thelawasitis?
Mr Dacre: No, obviously not. If judges can keep
making decisions that fly in the face of what most
peopleperceiveascommonsenseandcommonjustice
then they threaten the justice process itself because
peopledonottrustit.
BaronessO’Cathain:Thatisforthepoliticians.
Q367 Lord Goodlad: Is that not more for the
politicians?
MrDacre:WekeepgoingbacktoHumanRights.You
are makingjudgments thatwefeel anda lotof people
feelarepolitical.
Q368 Lord Goodlad: When you say the press are not
gettingthesupportofthejudiciary,couldyougivethe
Committeeoneortwoexamplesofthat?
Mr Dacre: I think I have already referred to the
development and emergence of this judge-driven
privacy law.I do not wantto go into specifics, but we
were simply astonished at the judgment recently
which denied a man whose wife had committed
adultery with another public figure the right to speak
about that. That seemed shattering to me and
everything I have understood about newspapers.
Injunctions are being handed out with greater and
greater frequency, as we have seen over the last few
days—a very unedifying spectacle, if I may say.
Rightlyorwrongly,wefeelthatoneortwojudgesare
very anti-press. Very anti-press. They do not
understandnewspapers.Theydonotlikenewspapers.
They do not like popular newspapers, in particular,
and they do not quite realise that, in their dislike of
76
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
7 March 2007
Mr Paul Dacre
popular newspapers, their disdain of popular
newspapers, they are disdaining millions of people
who read those newspapers. I am afraid that is a
feelingveryprevalentlyheldbyseveraleditors.
Q369 Lord Lyell of Markyate: I share your view
about that judgment but it is worth recording that it
wasoverturnedonappeal.
MrDacre:No,Idonotthinkithasbeen.
Q370 LordLyellofMarkyate:Ithas.
MrDacre:Idoapologise.1
Q371 Chairman: Thinking of your last remarks,
could it be that the judiciary, rather like Corporal
Jones,“don’tlikeitup’em”?
1Mr Dacre was referring to CC v AB [2006] EWHC 3083; [2007]
Entertainment & Media Law Reports 11. Lord llyell of
Markyatewasreferringto adiVerentjudgement, AVBplc [2003]
QB 195.
Mr Dacre: You said it, sir. I think they like dishing it
but not taking it, but that is true of a lot of people. I
retract that comment—I really do. One of the things
I was going to suggest is that there should be, maybe
in the form of forums, opportunities where senior
editors and senior members of the judiciary can
cross-fertilisetheirviews.Indeed,therehavebeen,on
an informal basis, one or two very useful dinners on
that basis. I do think judges—and this sounds a little
patronising—doneedtobealittlelesssensitiveabout
the media, a little less defensive, maybe a little more
magisterial and Olympian and not worry so much
about the hurly-burly and cut and thrust of her
Majesty’s red-tops.
Chairman: Thank you very much. You have been
very generous with your time, and, like every good
journalist, you have sensed, I am sure, the blood
pressure and adrenalin levels of your audience rising
considerably.
77
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
TUESDAY 1 MAY 2007
Present
Bledisloe, V
O’Cathain, B
Goodlad, L
Quin, B
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Windlesham, L
(Chairman)
Woolf, L
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, examined.
Q372 Chairman: Good morning and welcome Lord
Justice Thomas and welcome Sir Igor; it is a great
pleasure to see you back for the second time after
such a brief interval.
Lord Justice Thomas: Thank you.
Q373 Chairman: I should say that the proceedings
are being filmed and therefore it would be very
helpful if you would, before we do anything else,
briefly identify yourselves.
LordJusticeThomas:IamJohnThomas,LordJustice
Thomas.
Sir Igor Judge: I am Igor Judge, President of the
Queen’s Bench Division.
Q374 Chairman: Thank you very much. I know that
there has been an enormous number of very
informative papers produced by the judiciary in the
last few weeks on changes to the administration of
the justice system. I wonder if you would care to
make a brief opening statement?
Lord Justice Thomas: We have prepared something
and I hopeit will be helpful to you if Iwere to outline
our present position? It is our view that the creation
of a Ministry of Justice is not simply a machinery of
government change (which would ordinarily be
solely for the executive branch of government to
determine), but it is one that involves, in our view,
significant constitutional change. Unlike the reform
to the oYce of Lord Chancellor, it appears possible
for this change to be eVected without legislation.
However,
its
constitutional
importance
is
undiminished by that fact. Our constitution, as you
all appreciate, is based both on statute law and on
constitutional
understandings
and
conventions.
Those understandings and conventions include
reliance upon full and appropriate respect for the
diVerent positions occupied by the three branches of
government.In the view of the judiciarythe proposal
to create a Ministry necessitates: first, a clear
examination of the best way to achieve the necessary
changes, and the complexity of this task has become
increasingly evidentas workhas progressed, just as it
didafterthedecisionwasmadetoreformtheoYceof
LordChancellor.Secondly,itrequiresthecreationof
adiVerentrelationshipbetweenthenewMinistry,the
judiciary and the court administration. We consider
this is necessary to ensure the independence of the
judiciaryinperformingtheirdutiestoupholdtherule
of law and deliver the proper administration of
justice. We began to examine the implications of the
proposed Ministry of Justice immediately after the
possibility of the immediate creation of such a
Ministry was raised in the media on Sunday 22
January
this
year.
We
pressed
for
detailed
information and an outline paper detailing possible
models for the Ministry was provided by the
Department
of
Constitutional
AVairs.
On
7
Februaryamemorandumwassentbythejudiciaryto
the Permanent Secretary of the DCA with two
working papers, one on resources and HMCS, and
another on sentencing. The judiciary asked in those
papers forathoroughexaminationof theissues prior
to the creation of the Ministry. Discussions followed
with the Permanent Secretary of the DCA and the
LordChancellor.On19March,about10daysbefore
the announcement by the Prime Minister of the
creationoftheMinistryofJustice,attheinvitationof
the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chancellor and the
Lord Chief Justice agreed to set up a working party
which would report to them both jointly. The terms
ofreference ofthatworkingparty werelimitedbythe
Lord Chancellor’s position that the working party
must proceed on the basis of a number of parameters
and in particular should not involve any legislative
change. The judiciary agreed to participate to see if
the necessary constitutional safeguards could be
eVected within these parameters, but made it clear
that the parameters would have to be revisited if
appropriate constitutional safeguards could not be
provided within them. It is our view that there are
three substantial issues to be addressed. First,
finances. Drawing on the experience of other
countries where these problemshave beenaddressed,
the judiciary have taken the view that there must be
appropriate and transparent mechanisms to ensure
the necessary resources are provided for the courts.
First, we considered that there must be a fixed
mechanism to set the budget and operating plan with
provision for capitalexpenditure; and,in theeventof
adisputebetweenthe judicialandexecutivebranches
of government as to the resources necessary, the
arbiter must be the legislature which of course
ultimately votes the budget in accordance with their
78
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge
view as to priorities of overall expenditure. It is also
necessary to ensure that if adjustments are proposed
to the budget during the year (for example by taking
money from the agreed budget to remedy shortfalls
elsewhereinthe Ministry),thereis asimilaropenand
transparent mechanism which must be followed
before a change is made. The necessity for such
mechanisms both for setting the budget and for any
changesisinourviewselfevidentwithintheMinistry
of Justice: in order to be independent and to be seen
to be independent the courts must be properly
resourced and must also be protected from the
adverse eVects on the financial assumptions or
planning of other parts of the Ministry which may
result fromany decisionswhich the judges may make
in applying the law. Secondly, there is the topic of
Court administration and the position of HMCS.
The administrative infrastructureof acourt systemis
integral to the independent administration of justice.
The judiciary are drawing on the experience of other
countries with Ministries of Justice, and in particular
Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark, where the
autonomous court administration with a greater
degree of judicial participation has been very
successful. It has underpinned the independence of
the judiciary, improved the relationship between the
judiciary and the court administration and improved
the delivery of justice for the public. A new structure
akin to these models is, in the view of the judiciary, a
constitutional safeguard made necessary by the
creation of the Ministry of Justice. The third area is
the relationship between the judiciary and the
executive. The relationships established just over a
year ago through the Concordat and Constitutional
Reform Act are complex. In addition, an equally
complex set of relationships have been developed to
improve the working arrangements between the
executiveandthejudiciary, some of which areset out
in the papers we have sent to you. Relations with the
Lord Chancellor and a Ministry whose principal
function relates to the courts in our view cannot
simply be transposed into a relationship with a
Ministry with wide-ranging responsibilities for
criminal justice and prisons and penal policy. We are
very anxious, within the proper constitutional
principles, to continue to develop the relationship
with the executive. However, working out the
principlesonwhich this is tobe doneand theeVect of
the
operation
of
the
Concordat
and
the
Constitutional
Reform
Act
is
far
from
straightforward.
For
example,
judicial
representation on the board of the Department of
Constitutional
AVairs,
one
of
the
important
safeguards
in
the
Concordat,
is
no
longer
appropriate for the board of the Ministry of Justice,
giventhe conflicts of interest to which it willgive rise.
A great deal of thought is, in our view, needed to
ensurethattheconstructiveandbeneficialworkdone
so far is not de-railed. Those are, in summary—and
it may seem a bit more than a summary—the views
that the working party has begun to address within
the terms of reference. Can I tell you that our
meetings so far have been constructive in identifying
all the issues? We are making progress, but diYcult
issues of principle still remain between those
involved. These require thought, discussion and
careful evaluation; we do not think they can be
rushed. The working party will report to the Lord
Chief Justice and to the Lord Chancellor as soon as
it can. However, it is at this stage impossible to tell
whether the working party will reach agreement on
what should be done or whether the work will reveal
(at least in the view of the judiciary) that the
necessary
changes
cannot
be
made
without
legislation. The papers provided by the judiciary in
February 2007 and the memorandum sent by the
LordChiefJusticetoalljudgesandmagistrateson29
March 2007 (when the creation of the Ministry was
announced)
made it
clear
that the
judiciary
considered that the Ministry of Justice should not be
brought into existence until the necessary safeguards
hadbeen agreed,giventhe constitutionalimportance
of the issues. However, the judiciary’s view was not
accepted. Since its creation on 19 March the working
party has therefore been endeavouring to work as
quickly as possible. The pressure of time is imposing
a significant burden on all members of the working
party but it falls particularly on the oYcials who are
supportingusandwhobearthisweight,andtowhom
weareverygrateful.Weconsiderthatthecompletion
of our work is urgent in the light of the fact that the
Ministry will come into existence in a week; and,
secondly, there are already issues which highlight the
constitutional diYculties which the creation of the
Ministry will bring about. There are pending judicial
reviews in two main areas—legal aid reforms and
prisons. These are two areas of the Ministry’s budget
which are demand-led but where the financial
provision is in eVect already fixed. The potential
conflicts of interest are already evident. The problem
in relation to legal aid is well understood, but
possibly the problems in relation to the prisons need
a further word of explanation, particularly as it is a
subject of public interest. Under the present
legislative framework it is the duty of the judiciary to
sentence in accordance with legislation, decisions of
the appellate courts and guidelines issued by the
Sentencing Guidelines Council. It is the duty of the
executive to provide the necessary prison places or
funding for community sentences to give eVect to
those decisions of the courts. The Minister in charge
ofpenalpolicymustasamatterof lawimplementthe
decisionsofthecourtsandfindtheresourcestodoso,
but his resources are limited by what is provided by
Her Majesty’s Treasury. Without new legislation
there is simply no Parliamentary mandate for the
79
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge
judiciary or the Sentencing Guidelines Council to
take resources into account in their decisions or in
formulatingguidelines. Itisobviously forParliament
to decide whether it is appropriate for them to do so.
Oneillustrationoftheproblemisthependingjudicial
reviews in relation to prisons (and, in particular, the
pressure on the parole system), which involve issues
that,ononeview,couldhaveamaterialadverseeVect
on prison resources. There is a potential conflict of
interest in a situation where the financial position of
the courts may be perceived to be at risk from the
eVect of adverse financial consequences that judicial
decisions may have on other parts of the same
Ministry’s budget. The present position is that the
constitutional implications of the Ministry now seem
to be clear. The working party is attempting to find
an acceptable solution within the parameters laid
down. However, we cannot predict whether we will
be successful. As I have already said, diYcult issues
of principle remain outstanding. In any event, if we
are to reach agreement it will also be necessary to
make amendments to the framework document for
the court service, any changes to which are subject to
HMTreasuryconsent.Furthermore,astheissuesare
of concern to thejudiciary as awhole, the Lord Chief
Justice has agreed that there will be appropriate
consultation through the Judges’ Council. Finally,
we take the view that it will be necessary to embody
the terms of any solution in a detailed constitutional
instrument. We consider that clearly further debate
and scrutiny of the issues and the possible solutions
isessentialbothintheshortandlongterm.Wewould
hope that the Committee would also permit us to
update it when the position of the working party is
clearer.
Q375 Chairman: Thank you very much; it is an
extremelycomprehensive statement.Itisnot ahappy
story. We will want to revert, in questions to you, to
the exact status and prospects of the joint working
party, which finds itself at the fulcrum of this, which
you and the Permanent Secretary jointly chair, and
the timetable and the likelihood of it contributing by
May 9 to any solution to some of the many problems
you have raised. We will want to revert to that but I
would like to start, appropriately for a Constitution
Committee, with a question about process. When
you first heard of this in January was that a Press
briefing, a political Whitehall story or was it a
proposal put to the judiciary?
Lord Justice Thomas: No—and Sir Igor willbe able to
help you directly on this—as I recall it there were
articles in the Sunday Press and Sunday media where
we first read of the position.
Q376 Chairman: That seems to me particularly
relevant because in the new greater separation of
powersmodel,whichweareoperatinginthiscountry
between the judiciary and the executive, it clearly,
following the Concordat, takes two to tango. If what
we are faced with is a unilateral demarche by the
government,concealingthis,asyouhavesaidinyour
statement,as amachineryofgovernment issuerather
than one aVecting the fundamental relationships
between the judiciary and the executive, it is more
likely to be a unilateral government initiative, which
is what it seems to be in retrospect, and I would like
to know, if you could step back from this multitude
of problems that have arisen, and if you can
characterise them from the point of view of the
judiciary, how a continuing dialogue on issues of
constitutional significance, would ideally operate
instead of what we appear to have had?
LordJusticeThomas:Ideallyitisimportantforpeople
to understand what aVects the constitution and what
aVects the machinery of government. For example, if
it hadbeendecidedmerely tosplit theHome OYcein
two,
without
aVecting
the
Lord
Chancellor’s
Department,itwouldnotdirectlyaVectthejudiciary.
However, once it was decided to move a significant
part of the Home OYce and amalgamate it with the
position of the Department it was not a mere
machinery of government change, and we tried to
make that clear and it has taken a little time for that
fact to be appreciated. If it had been accepted that
this was not a machinery of government change but
a
change
which
had
serious
constitutional
implications I would very much have hoped that
what the judiciary wanted, which was actually—as
has happened in other countries where this issue has
arisen—a proper, open examination so that we could
have something that Parliament was content with,
the judiciary was content with and the executive was
content with, would have happened, but that did
not happen.
Q377 Chairman: It could be argued that this is not
the first time that we have been faced in this
relationship
with
this
sort
of
rather
hasty
administrative
and
politically
driven
initiative
without recognising that in the new dispensation
there is a necessity for a joint approach, as it were.
Lord Justice Thomas: I would say a tripartite
approachbecauseIthinkitwouldbewrongtoignore
the position of Parliament.
Q378 Chairman: That is very flattering of you to say
so,andweprobablysharethatview!Thereclearlyare
seriousprocessissuesfromwhichIthinkwewouldall
hope lessons would be learned, but if I might just
address the substantive issue, which has been a
matter of concern, which is this: do you or Sir Igor
have concerns about the notion that the same
government department should be responsible both
for the Human Rights Act, for the preservation of
our rights and liberties on the one hand and for, on
80
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge
the other hand, prisons, probation, criminal law,
sentencing policies, all the things that would tend, in
one way or another to limit or curtail? It seems in
terms of checks and balances it is an uneasy mixture,
but maybe I am oversimplifying it?
Lord Justice Thomas: Could I make one observation
and I will ask Sir Igor to add something? It is right to
say that in a number of countries in the world there
are Ministries of Justice, but those which work
properly recognise that there has to be autonomy of
function and clear and transparent mechanisms
withinthem.SoIthinkitispossibletodothisbutyou
have to make certain that there is appropriate
autonomy of decision-making, for example as
regards to the courts in relation to the court
administration,
and
there
would
be
other
illustrations.ThereareMinistriesofJusticethathave
within them prosecution departments and again it is
absolutelyimperativethatyouhavethisautonomyof
function.
Sir Igor Judge: I am only speaking for myself on this.
Iamnottroubledabout the issueof policyandwhich
government department is responsible for the policy,
save and unless the day may come—and let us hope
that it never will, and I do not anticipate it now—
whenthe governmentof theday thinks that itspolicy
reflects the law; then we would have a diYculty. We
are supposed to, and we do, apply the law whatever
the policy of the government, whatever, for that
matter, the policy of the opposition. So I am not
myself concerned particularly about it if the current
constitutional conventions apply. I have a diVerent
concern and that is the one that Lord Justice
Thomas’ paper raised. May I try and illustrate a
particular concern, which is really the nuts and bolts
of it? I happen to know—and I am not commenting
on the individual case—that an individual who has
been
sentenced
to
imprisonment
for
public
protection and therefore is liable to stay in prison
until the parole board decides that it is safe for him
to be released had a determinate sentence fixed at 12
months. At the end of the 12-month period he is
contendingthatnoarrangementshavebeenmadefor
the Parole Board to examine whether it is safe to
release him or not; that is an issue which will come
beforeaJudgein duecourseand,as Iemphasise,Ido
not comment on it. If judicial review is granted that
may have substantial implications for the resourcing
of a section of the department for which the Ministry
of Justicewillbe responsibleafter 9May—theParole
Board and the prisons. It may have—and I am not
trying to raise this as a terror—very substantial
resource implications for the Parole Board: do they
have enough people doing the work, do they have
enough people doing the work in suYcient time? If
the Judge finds in favour of the individual who is
seeking judicial review it may therefore have
substantial resource implications and the question
thenarises:whereisthemoneytocomefrom?Fineat
present, but look 20 years down the line and we will
have a Minister of Justice who will wonder why on
earthonebitofhisdepartmentisorderinganotherbit
of his department to spend money and he may take
the view that spending the money is for him. The
other side of the coin—and this always matters—is
the view of the individual. If his judicial review fails,
the thought may cross his mind—it would be
unworthy but it may nevertheless cross his mind—
that the Judge was influenced in his decision against
him by the fact that there would be a huge cost
imposed on the Ministry, of which the judiciary
formed a part in financial terms. It is those sorts of
practical issues—and that is one little example—that
we think need to be addressed. The policy questions
follow—the legislation results from policy, but then
we have to look at the legislation that has been
produced and those are the sorts of issues that will
arise.
Q379 Chairman: I think you can probably detect
thatthere is alackof sympathyin thisCommittee for
what seems to have been at best a very ragged and
hasty process, but a cynic might say that all of this is
a great deal of huYng and puYng about money and
that the issue really at root, the concern to you and
your colleagues—anditis anunderstandableone—is
thatthe adequacy of the fundingnecessary for youto
do your important and necessary work as a result of
these changes becomes potentially contingent on
other governmental priorities and that everything
else is, as it were, a dignified cloak for, “Let us make
sure that we are financially viable.”
SirIgor Judge: The cynic would bewrong. Thatis the
shortanswer,ifImaysayso,andthereasonhewould
be wrong is because he is failing to appreciate that
judicial independence and the proper funding of the
judiciary is actually something that belongs to the
community. We do not sit in judgment in flummery
saying, “Judicial independence for our own sake.”
Theindependenceofthejudiciaryissomethingwhich
is precious to every single member of thecommunity.
You must be able to go into court and know that the
personsittinginjudgmentisneutral—notononeside
or the other—coldly applying the law that applies to
your case. So although people sometimes think that
when we defend judicial independence we are simply
defending our own corner, acting as a trade union, if
I may say so, that is not the case—we simply are not.
Theissueswhicharisehereareofgreatimportanceto
every member of the public.
Chairman: Thank you for that; I am glad you have
said it and you have repelled my cynicism. But there
is aninterestingmixturehere oftrade unionissues, as
you put it, and constitutional issues and it is the logic
of the Act and the Concordat that the judiciary
should have its proper and adequately assured
81
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge
sources of finance to do its job, but the running
together of the issues in the argumentation does
sometimes make it diYcult for those of us trying to
follow it sympathetically.
Q380 Baroness O’Cathain: One of the things you
stressed very firmly was that the Lord Chancellor
said there should be no legislative changes. In the
working party have you taken, as a side issue, the
consideration of what legislative changes would be
necessary in order to make this run smoothly and to
do away with the sorts of problems in terms of
resources, both human and financial?
Lord Justice Thomas: We are precluded by our terms
of reference.
Q381 Baroness O’Cathain: You are not allowed to
even consider it?
Lord Justice Thomas: No. But we wonder whether we
can achieve acceptable constitutional safeguards
within it. If we cannot, because of those parameters,
thejudicialmembersofthecommitteewillsayso,but
we are not allowed; the Lord Chancellor has
stipulated—and that was the term on which the
working party was established—that it had to work
on the basis that there would be no change to the
legislative framework.
Q382 Baroness O’Cathain: Could younot have said,
“We will not do that”?
Lord Justice Thomas: We were faced with a very
diYcultposition.Ourpositionatthestarthadalways
been that this was a constitutional question. If we
look at what happens in other countries there has
been a proper debate, an examination. That was
refused. And because we were always worried—we
were told that this is the view of the government, it
was a machinery of government change and it could
be made by a ministerial announcement very
suddenly—we felt that if we were to try and protect
our position we had no alternative, but we always
made it clear that if we could not achieve proper
constitutional safeguards through a solution that did
not involve legislative change we would say so, and
that is the position we have maintained throughout.
Q383 Chairman: The Lord Chancellor in the past
fromtimeto time properly actedas acounterpoint to
the
Home
Secretary,
both
in
terms
of
the
independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
Woulditbeaseasyforhim,doyouthink,tocontinue
to defend the independence of the judiciary,
especially over some of these sentencing issues once
he is responsible for criminal justice? Will that be as
easy as it was?
Lord Justice Thomas: I think the conflicts that are
being put into one person will make it progressively
more diYcult as future ministers no longer have the
tradition of the oYce. I think one of the problems we
sawwasthatthere was a big changein thepositionof
Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary to Lord
Chancellor not as head of the judiciary. One way of
looking at the current change is from Lord
Chancellor to a quasi-Home Secretary where the
relations with the judiciary have been very diVerent.
So I think it is inevitable over the process of time, it
seems to me, that the tensions will become very
considerable.
Q384 Chairman: There is a transition from head of
thejudiciary,which iswhathewas,to defenderofthe
judiciary to what now?
Lord Justice Thomas: He will remain the defender of
the judiciary andIhave nodoubtthat LordFalconer
will continue to do that, but one has to look forward
andactuallyrealise thatyouareplacing inthe person
of one man—or one woman—as it goes forward a
muchmore diYcultbalancing act andthat, Ithink, is
the problem.
Q385 Chairman: Would you expect there to be a lot
more judicial review challenges now?
Lord Justice Thomas: There have always been a lot of
judicialreviewchallengesattheHomeOYce.SirIgor
will be able to help you on that.
Sir Igor Judge: There will undoubtedly be a very
substantial increase in the number of judicial review
applications against the Ministry of Justice than
there ever were against the Lord Chancellor as an
individual Minister, simply because great tranches of
judicial
review
relate
to
prisons,
parole—in
particular prisons—what happens to prisoners, are
they released on time and so on and so forth. So the
answer to your question is undoubtedly yes.
Q386 Viscount Bledisloe: Following from that, on
the other side, under the Constitutional Reform Act
there is meant to be a lot of dialogue between the
Lord Chief Justice and the senior judges like
yourselves with the Lord Chancellor and his
department. Is it going to make it extremely diYcult
to do that if they are defendants in a large number of
judicial review cases?
Sir Igor Judge: Yes.
Lord Justice Thomas: It is. It is an issue that the
working party has begun to discuss. The one thing
that is of paramount importance is that the Lord
Chief Justicemust sitin the majorcases—it is his job,
primarily, todecidethem. It would beawful andvery
damaging, I think, to the judiciary as a whole that
because of the need to maintain the dialogue under
the Concordat with the Lord Chancellor there was
any perceived diYculty with him doing that. One
always must look, as Sir Igor has said in an earlier
answer, at the perception from the point of view of
the litigant. We may understand that if two people
82
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge
meet together to discuss an issue under the
Concordat they would never discuss the case, but
actually what is the perception of the litigant? That is
terribly, terribly important.
Q387 Viscount Bledisloe: However ingenious a
solution you and the Lord Chancellor’s Department
come to, is the litigant himself going to believe in this
separation and indeed is Strasbourg going to believe
in this separation?
Lord Justice Thomas: As I have said, we have
identified this as an issue. Itis one of the very diYcult
questionsthatyoustartto unpick asyouexaminethe
constitutional implications of the change and we
have not begun to work out a solution to this
particular problem yet.
Q388 Baroness O’Cathain: The Lord Chief Justice
wrotealetterof29MarchtotheJudges’Councilthat
stated,
“We
have
demanded
that
structural
safeguards are put in place if the new ministry is not
to threaten the due and independent administration
of justice”. What, in your view, are the structural
safeguards that are needed?
Lord Justice Thomas: I think there are two essential
ones, that the budget for the courts and any change
to it is set in an open and transparent manner, and I
regard settingthebudget asimportant as thechanges
to it. The second is the independence of the court
service administration. It is very diYcult to see why a
minister should any longer, when he has these very
wide responsibilities, have any need, save in
exceptional circumstances, to intervene in the aVairs
of an executive agency or an agency whose sole
function is administration, and those are the two, in
our view, fundamental safeguards. The third is
making certain that we have put relationships to the
new ministry on a basis where there is clear
understanding.Weareanxioustohave,aswehavein
this country much more than in many others, a good
dialogue between the three branches of government,
but the one thing that is essential to that is everyone
understands the true limits—we can discuss things
provided we each know the limitations. Why I used
the word “derail” in what I said to you earlier was
that if you do not have clear understandings and
people go beyond the limits you then make it very
diYcult to continue the dialogue, and dialogue, I
think, between the branches of the government is
essential to make it work properly.
Q389 Baroness
O’Cathain:
But
there
were
safeguards contained in the Constitutional Reform
Act, were there not?
Lord Justice Thomas: Yes.
Q390 Baroness O’Cathain: Is there an overlap?
Lord Justice Thomas: They were designed for the
position
of
the
Lord
Chancellor
qua
Lord
Chancellor;theywerenotdesignedforthepositionof
Lord Chancellor qua Minister of Justice, and that is
the fundamental change.
Q391 Chairman: So is the logic of that that the
Concordat, the founding understanding, will need in
some way updating something of that—as I think it
has been described—quasi entrenched character.
Will that need in some way to be updated?
LordJusticeThomas:Ihavereferredinmyevidenceto
one issue. One of the protections we had in relation
to the financial position of the courts was an
agreement that the Senior Presiding Judge should sit
on the board of the ministry, and it seemed to us that
that was acceptable given the narrow remit of the
Lord Chancellor’s Department. We have taken the
view that it would be wholly inappropriate for a
Judge to sit on the board of a ministry where there
wasaconflictbetweenhowmuchshouldwespendon
prisons or how much should we spend on the courts,
and so that safeguard, in our view, has gone and we
need to put other safeguards in its place and maybe
adjust other provisions of the Concordat.
Q392 Chairman: Is that what you had in mind when
you said that this might in the end need legislative
change?
Lord Justice Thomas: We hope it will not but we do
not know. I am sorry not to be more clear about this,
but I think as we foundwhenwe came to look athow
you unravel the oYce of the Lord Chancellor these
things are more complex than at first sight might
appear.
Q393 Chairman: As indeed constitutional issuesare,
and I think we are all in a learning curve.
LordJusticeThomas:Thatiswhy,ifImaysay,wesaid
at the beginning that this is an issue that needs
thought and scrutiny and help, and we are therefore
very grateful to you for your help and scrutiny.
Q394 Lord Goodlad: Could I ask you, Lord Justice
Thomas and Sir Igor how, if and when court funding
is squeezed the resulting disagreements between the
judiciary and the new department will in practice be
resolved?
Lord Justice Thomas: We are still in the process of
discussions but, as I said, it seems to me—and this is
what happens in a number of other countries—if
ultimately the judiciary and the executive cannot
agree, it is, after all, Parliament that decides on the
appropriations and it must ultimately therefore be
for Parliament. This is what happens in a number of
other countries. One would hope it would very rarely
come to that but you always, in my view, have to
83
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge
build in a process with some form of resolution, and
constitutionally it must be Parliament.
Q395 Chairman: Would you expect that what the
Lord Chief Justice calls the nuclear option of his
being able to go directly to Parliament would have to
be called into play in order to get that concentration
on the issue?
Lord Justice Thomas: I would hope it would rarely
happen because I would hope that if we can put in
place what I would describe as an open and
transparent method of setting the budget then one
would hope that that would not have to happen very
often. My understanding is that in those countries
whererecoursetoParliamentisanoptionithasnever
yet happened.
Sir Igor Judge: There is a problem with nuclear
options, which is that you cannot keep using them.
Q396 Chairman: There is nothing left after the first
one.
Sir Igor Judge: Exactly, therefore we really do not
ever want to get into that position and part of our
concern is so that we should achieve an arrangement
in which we never in reality do get to such a position.
Q397 Chairman: What that suggests, does it not, is
that it is not enough to have dialogue—dialogue is a
very good thing, dialogue is excellent—but we really
seem to be saying that we need dependable processes
that over time can deal with these proper, maybe
inevitable points of tension and we need processes in
place and not simply a good chat from time to time,
is that right?
Lord Justice Thomas: That is absolutely right because
our view is that this is a fundamental change which
has to last to the future and we must have proper
process.
Q398 Viscount Bledisloe: When you say it should be
decided by Parliament, presumably you mean that a
Parliamentary committee would sit on this and make
areport,ratherthanit shouldbedebatedonthefloor
of the House of Commons?
Lord
Justice
Thomas:
I
think
it
would
be
presumptuous of me to seek to advise Parliament as
to how it should carry it out. That is an issue which
we have not addressed but it is I think presumptuous
for me to say to you how you should do your work.
Q399 Chairman: Although there is much wisdom in
thisHousewehavenocontrolovermoney,ofcourse.
Lord Justice Thomas: No, but the other House does.
ButhowyoudothatIthinkisamatterfordiscussion;
I would not presume to advise.
Q400 Lord Woolf: You have talked about the fact
that there is the working party and you have told us
one parameter, legislation. What are the other
parameters which are ones that you cannot go
outside?
Lord Justice Thomas: They do not want any changes
to the Concordat, any changes to HMCS’s status as
an executive agency, no ring fencing of budgets and
ultimately the Lord Chancellor has to decide, subject
to his statutory obligations, on budgetary issues.
Q401 Lord Woolf: So you are not allowed to discuss
in the working party, as I understand it, the ring
fencing or the budget?
Lord Justice Thomas: No.
Q402 Lord Woolf: Am I right in thinking that was
one of the conditions that the judiciary thought
should be met if there was to be this new ministry?
Lord Justice Thomas: We think that there is an equal
importance to setting the budget as to ring fencing
the budget once established. I think we have always
accepted that there could be quite exceptional
reasons why there was a problem. So we have never
said you have to have absolute ring fencing, but we
have always said that once the budget is agreed the
court administration should be left to get on with
administering
the
courts,
providing
the
administrative infrastructure, and there should in
eVect be no interference with its budget.
Q403 Lord Woolf: You also mentioned that you
have looked at other jurisdictions.
Lord Justice Thomas: Yes.
Q404 Lord Woolf: I noticed in evidence that has
been given by the Lord Chancellor that reference is
made to Scotland.
Lord Justice Thomas: Yes.
Q405 Lord Woolf: In Scotland are there steps which
are being taken to achieve what you have just
described?
Lord Justice Thomas: What has happened in Scotland
is that the Scottish executive put out a consultation
paper and one of the areas that was raised in the
consultation was the budget and the operation of the
equivalentofthecourtservice.TheJudgesresponded
to the consultation paper in about February of this
year and the Scottish executive said that it wanted to
consider the matter further, but of course at the
moment I would imagine that no decision could be
made until next week, at the earliest. So the issue is
live there. This issue has been looked at very
thoroughly; for example, at the moment it is being
looked at in Canada. It has been satisfactorily
resolved in the Republic of Ireland, in Denmark and
Holland where, if one speaks both to the Judges and
84
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Lord Justice Thomas and Sir Igor Judge
to the administrators, they have a system that is
workable and that has improved everything from the
pointofviewofeveryoneandinparticularthepublic.
Q406 Lord Woolf: But you cannot, as part of your
discussions in the working party, as I understand it,
develop the Irish example.
LordJusticeThomas: We think thatit maybepossible
to get pretty close to it but that is where we may not
be able to, but I think it is very diYcult to have a
working party and try to reach through discussion
some sort of solution without actually leaving my
answer to it there.
Q407 Lord Woolf: One last question. What are the
prospects of the working party coming to any
consensus by May 9?
Lord Justice Thomas: I would think it is very diYcult
because these issues are complicated. Again, we are
trying—we have worked hard many nights, and I
know the department has worked hard many nights,
and we will continue to do so.
Q408 Chairman:Ithinkanobjectiveobserverwould
be rather gloomy that with the changes due to take
place on May 9 and these very large unresolved
issues—including
no-go
areas,
which
seem
incomprehensible to me, but there we are, it does not
seem
like
an
equal
negotiation—that
with
negotiation under that sort of pressure will you not
on May 9 lose all leverage in that joint working party
to arrive at the proper agreed solutions that
concern you?
Lord Justice Thomas: I would hope not because if the
position is on May 9 that we have not agreed but are
making progress, if the Lord Chancellor was to take
the position that now it was in being and he need not
negotiate very further, then there would be a very
serious constitutional problem. I am sure he will not
do that.
Chairman: I am sure he is listening very carefully to
the point. I am afraid it will have to be the last
question, but I would like to bring in Baroness Quin.
Q409 Baroness Quin: On a number of occasions
already you have mentioned the experience in other
countries and I know that the Judges’ Council has
carriedoutacomparativesurveyoftheprocessesand
institutions in terms of judiciary-executive relations
inotherEuropeanlegalsystems.Arethereanypoints
in relation to that study which you have not already
made, about which you would like to take the
opportunity of informing the Committee?
Lord Justice Thomas: I think not. I think what is very
important is that these are very serious issues and in
almosteveryother countrytherehasbeenaproper—
as we asked for at the beginning—and detailed
examination, so that you come to a solution that is
acceptable across the board to the executive, to the
legislature and to the judiciary and actually you get a
solutionthatislong-termforthebenefitofthepublic.
I think that is the most important lesson. The only
other thing I would say is that when we look at court
administrations in other countries there is a question
as to how you constitute the board. For example—
and pray excuse me if my memory is wrong—in two
countries, of which I think one is Hungary and the
other is Norway, to ensure that the legislature has its
proper interest in court administration there are
members of the legislature who sit on the board. In
other countries you have people who represent the
legal profession, you have people who represent
people who work in the court administration at a
lower level and you have experts in finance; but the
importance of the constitution of the board, which
has been addressed in these countries, shows how
important court administration is and how it is a
matter of real public interest and not something
where a political minister—using the word as a
political appointee—should really have any role at
all.
Q410 Baroness Quin: Could I just follow that up by
saying in the classic split between the Ministry of
Interior and Ministry of Justice, which you see in
manytheEuropeancountries,is thereaministerwho
is an obvious defender of the judiciary, and if there is
not does that matter?
Lord Justice Thomas: I think we have been very
fortunate in the way our constitution has developed
and I hope this will always remain, that we have had
the special position of the Lord Chancellor, and I
know atthe timeofthedebates ontheConstitutional
Reform Act there were various ideas that he should
bemade intothesort ofprotectorof theconstitution.
It is very important for our harmonious working of
the constitution that there is some minister who has
a specific responsibility, but some of the continental
systems work diVerently—they have diVerently
constituted Judges’ Councils—and as far as I am
aware the issue of having someone with special
responsibility has not been addressed, but I will
certainly look into that and come back to you, if I
may.
Q411 Chairman: May I thank you both very much.
It is very good of you and we have found the
evidence—I
cannot
say
cheering—extremely
revealing and I am most grateful to you both for
coming.
LordJusticeThomas:Thankyouverymuchindeedfor
taking an interest in what to some might appear a
very abstruse subject.
85
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
Examination of Witness
Witness: Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC, a Member of the House of Lords, Secretary of State for
Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, examined.
Q412 Chairman:
A
warm
welcome,
Lord
Chancellor. I should say that this is being filmed for
television so it would be good of you—although
strictly redundant—to identify yourself for the
cameras.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Lord Falconer of
Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of
State for Constitutional AVairs.
Q413 Chairman: Thank you very much, and I
should also warn you that there are photographs
being taken and I hope they do not distract you. We
have just heard evidence from Lord Justice Thomas
and Sir Igor and one thing that emerges very clearly
isthatjustasontheoccasionoftheannouncementof
the announcement of the abolition of the Lord
Chancellor and creation of the Supreme Court we
have in the last few months been faced with a
government demarche, which is ostensibly about the
shuZing of departmental and Cabinet responsibility
as a machinery of government issue, but nevertheless
appears to have very profound constitutional
implications, as the first one did and this one has. I
want to ask you very directly: are you satisfied with
the way in which these changes are (a) leaked, (b)
announced, (c) iterated and(d) turned into a rational
process of constitutional change?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As to leaks I will not
comment. As to the process I am completely satisfied
it is a sensible way of dealing with it. Can I briefly
summarisewhatthepositionis?FromFebruary2007
a Ministry of Justice became a serious possibility.
During February and March there were discussions
and exchanges of papers between the judiciary and
myself. On 19 March, ten days before the formal
announcement of the Ministry of Justice, a working
party was set up between the Judges and senior
oYcials to discuss the implications because the
implications are very important in relation to this
change.Butwhatisagreedbetweentheexecutiveand
the judiciary is that a Ministry of Justice is in
principle constitutionally acceptable, subject to
certain safeguards being put in place. The working
party is a good, constructive and sensible way of
working those details out because I do not think that
anybodyissuggestingthatwechangethefundaments
of Lord Woolf’s and my Concordat; nor is anybody
suggesting we change the fundaments of the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which changed the
Lord Chancellor—and that was a big constitutional
change—from being a Judge in government to being
a minister in government but with a special
relationship with the judiciary, and that special
relationshipwiththe judiciarycontinuesandIdonot
believe—and nor do I believe other people in the
working party believe—that that special relationship
cannot be preserved subject to sorting out the
operational arrangements; they are very important. I
amcompletelysatisfiedofthemethodbywhichitwas
done; Ithink itwas a sensibleway of doing it. Iheard
the end of some of the questioning of Lord Justice
Thomas; there is absolutely no question of having to
conclude, if they are not concluded, the discussions
by 9 May. I have absolute faith that the Judges, my
oYcials, myself and the Lord Chief Justice are only
concerned to reachaconclusion thatleads to the best
result for the good operation of the machinery of
government, and that is absolutely clear from the
working of the arrangements that are in place. Why
wehavedoneitinthiswayisbecauseIthinkyouneed
clarity about the arrangements going forward. If I
thought that there was fundamental constitutional
uncertainty about doing it in this way then I would
havebeenagainstit.But thatis notmyview; Ibelieve
that the arrangements we have put in place deal with
all the legitimate concerns and I am confident that
with people of the quality of John Thomas, Igor
Judge, Alex Allan and my senior oYcials we will
reach agreement.
Q414 Chairman:Weareimpressedbyyourfaithand
confidence, but let me put this to you. It seems that
the government maynothave come to terms withthe
very deep constitutional implications of its own
Constitutional Reform Act, of which you were the
co-parent, and I will put it this way: if there is a
greater measure of separation of powers and the
independence of the judiciary, and their sphere is
more clearly delineated from that of the executive
and the government, surely it stands to reason that
changes which aVect both parties should be mutually
arrived rather than there being a unilateral demarche
by the government, albeit—and I hear what you say
about the working party that follows that up—
should you not have started with the working party,
with the judiciary who have their own sphere here to
work through the implications of this, rather than
having the usual simplistic machinery of government
drive towards it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important
change that has implications. You are completely
wrong. I do not know whether it is your words or the
Judges’—unilateral demarche—
Q415 Chairman: No, it is my word.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is a completely
inaccurate account of it. The critical thing is—
Q416 Chairman: I am sorry, was it discussed with
the Judges before the announcement started coming
out of Whitehall?
86
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot comment on the
leaks, I had nothing whatsoever to do with that. As
soon as it became a serious prospect then I discussed
it, as you know, with the Judges and that started in
February. The important thing is to focus on the
constitutional implications of the Constitutional
Reform Act because you are absolutely right when
you say that that has to be the foundation of
everything. The Constitutional Reform Act involved
a fundamental change in the role of the Lord
Chancellor. What happened to the Lord Chancellor
as a result of that Act of Parliament was that he
ceased to be a Judge, he obtained certain statutory
responsibilities,
including
protecting
the
independence of the judiciary; and also the courts
and the Lord Chancellor were linked by primary
legislation. The impact of the changes that we are
now discussing involves bringing prisons, probation
and sentencing to the Lord Chancellor. It does not
relieve him of either his responsibilities to the court
system or his duties to the Judges. What has to be
worked out is how, in the light of his increased
responsibilities, in operational terms, that will aVect
his relationship with the Judges. That is what the
working party is doing and it is very important, I
think,tofocusonthefactthattheLordChiefJustice,
speakingonbehalfoftheJudges,hassaidinprinciple
that subject proper to safeguards that is okay, and it
is, I think, right to focus on the process but wrong to
thinkitiseitherthewrongprocessoronethatwillnot
produce a result.
Q417 Chairman: You are not inclined to think that
what seems to be a very considerable amount of
questioning on behalf of the judiciary reflects
dissatisfaction with the way in which this has been
dealt? You are not inclined to take that seriously?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I take everything
genuinely—and
I
read
in
the
newspapers
dissatisfaction with some elements discussed by
individualJudges—andIamaskeenasIpossiblycan
be and I hope my record reveals over the past four
years that I have been personally as committed as I
possibly can be to having a good constitutionally
productive relationship with the Judges because I
recognise my role under the constitution and my role
under the various pieces of legislation. I do believe
that this process is one that will produce results.
Q418 Chairman: I was interested in the Judges’
Council paper, which you will of course seen.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have.
Q419 Chairman: The words that say, “The creation
of a Ministry of Justice is not a simple machinery of
government change but one which impacts on the
separation of powers.” Would you agree with that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton:The critical framework for
the separation of powers now comes in the
Constitutional Reform Act and the constitution. It
has very important implications because what you
have to deal with in the machinery of government
changes where there are implications is a Lord
Chancellor with all of the constitutional positionlaid
out in the Constitutional Reform Act with these
additional responsibilities. The sorts of things that
then arise are, one is worried with maybe the prison
or probation service seeking money—could that
impact on the funding of the courts? Judicial reviews
will come—actually judicial reviews come in to the
Legal Services Commission at the moment and the
way that the courts resolve those could well have an
impact on funding for the courts, but we have been
able to accommodate that. The fact we have been
able to accommodate that does not mean it will not
bediVerentinpracticaltermsgoingforward,andthat
is what we need to talk about.
Q420 Chairman:Weweretoldinthedyingmoments
of the evidence which you have just heard that the
subject ofthering fencingofthecostsofthe judiciary
was expressly excluded from the agenda of the
working party.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before the announcement
on29Marchandbefore thesettingupof theworking
party I made it clear that I was against ring fencing,
andIwilltellyouthereasonIamagainstringfencing
isbecauseIfound,doingitforthelastfouryears,that
fromtimetotimeIhavehadtomovemoneyfromthe
courts. The best example is I moved money away
from the courts at one point in order to fund better
the Legal Aid Fund because ensuring a good justice
system may involve saying some maintenance on the
court buildings has to be delayed in order to ensure
thatpeopleareproperlyrepresentedincourt.SoIam
against the idea of ring fencing of the court budget,
but I completely accept the need for a properly
funded court system. The protections there come in
Section 1 of the 2003 Courts Act and Sections 1 and
3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. If ring
fencingwasregardedasanecessaryacceptanceofthe
Ministry of Justice then no doubt I would have been
told,“Iamafraidonthatbasiswecannotagreetoit,”
but that is not what I was told.
Q421 Chairman: I would just like to come back to
your own key responsibility as the defender of the
independence of the judiciary. In a sense, your role
has morphed from, in the old days, being head of the
judiciary to being the protector or defender of the
judiciary now. Do you see yourself, in the light of
these changes and the creation of the Ministry of
Justice, being in any way inhibited in that role?
87
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Absolutely not. The idea
that a minister being responsible for courts and the
judges cannot also be responsible for prisons,
probation and sentencing policy seems completely
wrong. It is a model in many other countries and I
would regard my ability to defend the judges, their
independence and a proper functioning court system
as in no way aVected by that. That is a critical
considerationinmesupportingthe ideaofaMinistry
of Justice.
Q422 Viscount Bledisloe: You have said you are
convinced that this is going to work subject to the
safeguardsbeing in place. Youhavesaidthat youare
confident that the working party will come to a
solution. The other half of this negotiation has said
that it is very unconfident that it will come to a
solution,particularlyin thelight of thebarsyou have
put down on any new legislation and so on.
Supposing it does not come to a solution? What
happens? Do you unravel the changes you have
made?Would itnot bemore sensible towait until the
working party has solved the problem before
implementing this change?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, absolutely not. First
of all, I did not hear all Sir John Thomas’s and Sir
Igor Judge’s evidence. I did hear Sir John Thomas
saying that maybe we will not reach agreement by 9
May.Ihave not heardhim say—thoughhe may have
said it to you—that he thinks they will not reach
agreement.
Q423 Viscount Bledisloe: He said that it is very
diYcult and very doubtful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My own view is that it will
be possible to reach agreement but no doubt we will
wait and see. If we cannot reach agreement, that is
not going to stop the Ministry of Justice going ahead
on9May2007. We havemadeit absolutelyclearand
the judges know perfectly well that the Ministry is
goingtogoaheadon9May.Ibelievethatwhatneeds
to be done is that the working party needs to go
through the various issues. I believe they have gone
through a number of the issues and have reached
agreement on a number of the issues, but it is all
subject obviously to an overall agreement.
Q424 Viscount Bledisloe: They are negotiating with
no muscle at all because it is going to happen
anyhow, whether they agree or not.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The judges and the
executive are negotiating in good faith to achieve a
common end. You need to strike a balance between,
on the one hand, there not being a prolonged period
of uncertainty in relation to which ministry is in
charge of what against the need to agree in principle
the things that matter. The position of the judiciary
has been it is okay subject to suitable safeguards
being worked out. That is what the Lord Chief
Justice has said and that is what is now being
negotiated.
Q425 Viscount Bledisloe: They are not worked out.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that they will be.
Q426 Viscount Bledisloe: It takes two to tango and
to make an agreement. If an agreement is not made,
what happens?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If an agreement is not
madetherewillbeareaswherethereisagreementand
there will probably be areas where there is
disagreement. Those areas that are agreed will be put
into eVect and the rest will have to evolve.
Q427 Chairman: With your ministerial hat on, you
are saying that this is going to go ahead on 9 May.
Then you are saying that there is this very successful
negotiation, which is not the impression we got from
the judges. We have the impression that there are
some very large issues still unresolved but you will
talk to your Permanent Secretary about that. We do
not havean impression of an easy, downhillslope for
the nextfew days;wehavesomebig issues.What sort
of negotiation is it that says it does not matter
whether we agree or not because we are going ahead?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Both of us, like in so many
areas in politics, accept that the best thing to be
achieved is agreement even though neither side has
any sort of leverage in relation to it. I completely
agree with you that there are diYcult issues to be
negotiated
but
I
have
complete
confidence,
particularly in regard to those doing the negotiations
on both sides, that because they both want to reach
agreement it will be possible to reach agreement.
That is not in any way to underestimate the
diYculties of the negotiations but my own view is
that they will reach agreement despite the diYculties.
If they do not, there will be some areas of
disagreementbutIsuspecttherewillbeagreementon
most things. I suspect one will find that ways will be
found over time to deal with those areas of
disagreement.
Q428 Chairman:Doyouthinktherewillbearolefor
Parliament to play in trying to make sure that
agreement is reached?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of course.
Q429 Chairman: How might that work?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There would have to be a
debate in Parliament upon it. The fundamentals of
the relationship between the judiciary and the
executive are those set out in the Constitutional
Reform Act and the concordat. They are not
changing.
88
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
Q430 Chairman:
The
concordat
which
you
negotiated with Lord Woolf, which is the foundation
stone of the Constitutional Reform Act, is of
enormous constitutional significance. It has been
represented to us—and I think we probably agree—
that it has been a quasi-entrenched piece of
parliamentary and constitutional significance. Is it
not possible in the light of what has been negotiated
and changed here that it will need to be developed in
some way?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is an issue about
whether or not a judge or judges should sit on the
DCA board or the Ministry of Justice board. I am
more than happy to discuss that. We need to discuss
whether or not they should be on the HMCS board
as well as the DCA board or not on the DCA board.
The fundamentals of the concordat do not need
changing, I do not think. The question of whether
somebody should sit on the DCA board needs to be
looked at but I do not regard that as going to the
fundamentals of the concordat because, as you
know, basically what the concordat says—and this is
reflected in the Act—is that the Secretary of State is
under a duty to ensure that there is an eVective and
eYcient court system to support the carrying on of
the business of the courts as set out in part one of the
Courts Act. He is accountable to Parliament for the
overall
eYciency
and
eVectiveness
of
the
administration of the court system. He is responsible
for ensuring that the public interest is served in
decisionstakenonmattersaVectingthejudiciaryand
he is responsible for supporting the judiciary in
enabling them to fulfil their functions for dispensing
justice. That fundamental principle and obligation
on the part of the Secretary of State for Justice
remainsthesame.There areresponsibilitiesputupon
the Lord Chief Justice on behalf of the judiciary and
they equally remain the same. What the concordat
was doing was establishing a new relationship once
the Lord Chancellor stopped being a judge. That
remains the position.
Q431 Lord Goodlad: You have only rarely been on
the receiving end of judicial review challenges as
Secretary of State for Constitutional AVairs and the
Lord Chancellor. Do you think the picture will be
diVerent after 9 May?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hardly dare tell you this
but I am from time to time judicially reviewed or if
not me the Legal Services Commission. I think I had
31 judicial reviews, many of which did not get
anywhere. I know the Prison Service or the Secretary
of State for Home AVairs in his capacity as Prisons
Minister gets a lot more than that, but the principle
that I currently deal with is, from time to time, the
courts have to make decisions about the granting or
refusal of legal aid that can potentially have an eVect
on legal aid funding and that can in its turn have an
eVect on funding available to the courts. The judges
obviously make these decisions completely in
accordance with the law and the facts. So far as I am
concerned, it gives rise to absolutely no diYculty in
my relationship with the judges. I have never been
aware whether or not ajudge Ihave beenspeaking to
on a particular issue is involved in the hearing of an
individualcase.Icannotbelievethatinrelationtothe
prisons judicial review, of which there are more, that
would give rise to any practical diYculty, but I am
more than willing to discuss ways that we can deal
with that.
Q432 Lord Goodlad: Do you think there will be any
constitutional problems flowing from the fact that
theSecretaryofStateandtheLordChancellorwillbe
routinely a defendant in judicial review claims?
LordFalconer ofThoroton: No,I donot.Iam notsure
“routinely” would be quite fair but I completely
accept there will be many more judicial reviews from
the Ministry of Justice in relation to prisons. Again,
the problem is there in principle already. I do not
think you need to change the Constitution to deal
with that problem.
Q433 Lord Goodlad:Doyouthinkthere are likelyto
be diYculties in having the kind of regular dialogue
withtheLordChiefJusticeandotherseniorjudiciary
over the administration of justice under the
Constitutional Reform Act when they are sitting in
judgment on the legality of policies and executive
action taken by the Ministry of Justice?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No. They are already
doing that to a certain extent in relation to legal aid
issues. That has given rise to absolutely no diYculty
whatsoever, even though those are important issues,
even though they may be, as it were, finding my
department breaking the law in some way, and even
though those decisions may have an eVect on
conduct.
Q434 Lord Goodlad: Do you think there is any risk
that the Lord Chief Justice and other senior judges
with management roles who are in regular contact
with the Ministry of Justice will be put in a position
where they haveto decline to sitin any caseinvolving
the Ministry of Justice, for risk of breaching Article
6of theEuropean Convention,which requiresjudges
to be seen to be independent and impartial?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I do not think so. We
need to explore that right to the bottom but I do not
think that will happen because, in a whole variety of
ways at the moment, judges are involved in assisting
in the management of courts. There are presiding
judges in regions; there are resident judges in courts;
there are judges at the centre sitting on a variety of
committees; there are judges in discussion with my
department ona variety of issues. Ithas notyet given
89
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
rise to a problem and I do not think it will give rise to
a major problem.
Q435 Chairman: Is that too on the agenda of the
working party?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, it is. The judicial
review stuV is a point that has been raised.
Q436 Baroness O’Cathain: Both you and Lord
Justice Thomas have said that there will be more
judicial reviews. Obviously they are going to cost
money.Therefore, thewholeexerciseisgoing toneed
additional funding or is it going to get additional
funding? Is some other part of the legal system going
to be deprived of funding? Has this been cleared with
the Treasury?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There has been a transfer
of funds from the Home Department to the Ministry
of Justice. The people who resist and pay for
defending judicial reviews at the moment are plainly
in the prisons bit, if you are talking about prisons
judicial reviews, of the Home Department. All of
their budget has come over to me so it is not going to
create any more pressure on the courts’ budget but
there are judicial reviews which are going on anyway
at the moment. They are being funded by the Prison
Department.
Q437 BaronessO’Cathain:Ithoughtthe implication
wasthatthere weregoing tobemorejudicial reviews.
Lord
Falconer
of
Thoroton:
Unless
I
have
misunderstood Alastair’s and Harry’s question, it is
basically that the Home Department currently gets
lots and lots of judicial reviews. They will transfer
from
the
Home
Department
to
the
Justice
Department. You are going to be the Justice
Minister.That meansthe courts willbe deciding alot
more
issues
aVecting
your
department
than
previously.Theyarenotsuggestingthefactthatthere
is a Ministry of Justice means that there will be more
judicial reviews in respect of prisons. Harry is
nodding.
Q438 Viscount Bledisloe: It is your role as the Lord
Chancellor to make certain that the government is
not infringing the rule of law in what it is doing. The
greatest number of cases where in recent times it has
been held that government is infringing the rule of
lawisintheHomeOYceandinsomeoftheareasthat
have been transferred to you. Can you really see
yourself saying to yourself, “I must not do that,
though that is what my department wants to do,
because if I did that I would be flouting the rule of
law”?
Lord Falconerof Thoroton: Most certainly. I thinkit is
a good thing that these things come over to the
Department of Justice. It is an extremely good thing
and entirely beneficial to the Constitution that every
minister has an obligation in relation to the rule of
law spelt out in section one of the Constitutional
Reform Act. The Lord Chancellor has a special
obligation in relation to that and I think it is a
thoroughly good thing.
Q439 Viscount Bledisloe: Do you see the litigant
bringingone of these cases being delighted to seethat
the Department of Justice whom he is suing is the
person who is responsible for the courts and the
court system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The litigant is already
willing to sue me even though I am in charge of the
court system. I do not think he will be deterred by
that.
Q440 Viscount Bledisloe: The initial movement for
this change came because the Home OYce was said
to beoverworked andthere wasmorethan theHome
Secretary, senior oYcials and senior ministers could
cope with. Are you at present underworked?
Lord
Falconer
of
Thoroton:
No,
I
am
not
underworked.
Q441 Viscount Bledisloe: Are you not going to
become overworked when you get this?
LordFalconerofThoroton:No,IdonotthinkIwillbe.
Iwouldnot haveagreed tothese changesunless Iwas
a strong supporter and proponent of a Ministry of
Justice. I am enthusiastically in favour of the idea of
bringing prisons, probation the running of the court
system, sentencing policy and criminal law all under
one roof. It is extremely important to reach an
agreement with the judges which I believe we will do
but there is such a prize and an opportunity in terms
of the good administration of justice to obtain a
MinistryofJustice. Yes,thereareissuesinrelationto
the quite legitimate focus on the part of the Secretary
of State for Home AVairs on issues of crime and
terrorism but there are fundamentally good reasons
as well, which I strongly support and have supported
for some considerable time, for the creation of a
Ministry of Justice. Let us get the detail of how we
deal with the judges absolutely right and to their
satisfaction but let us not lose sight of the overall
benefits of doing this as well.
Q442 Viscount Bledisloe: Assuming there is a case
for a Ministry of Justice and the continuance of the
Home OYce, why should not the Lord Chancellor
not be a third, detached person who fulfils neither of
those roles?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Because I strongly believe
that part of the justification for the Ministry of
Justiceisthatthecourts,subjecttopropersafeguards
and with a minister with a special responsibility to
protect the administration of the courts and the
independent judiciary, should be there in the
90
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
Ministry of Justice as well. In my view, that has to be
an integral part of it and that is why the government
made the decision to go ahead on 9 May with this
Ministry of Justice.
Q443 Chairman: We can see you are very excited
about the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, I am very supportive.
Q444 Chairman:
What
will
happen
to
those
important constitutional aVairs for which you are
presently responsible? Will they become orphans?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, they remain in the
Ministry of Justice and it is a thoroughly good thing
that they do. Issues like human rights, freedom of
information,
the
Constitution
of
the
United
Kingdom are inextricably linked, I think, with the
rule of law and the running of the courts. It is the
right place for them to be. It is a job of substance. It
is a big job. It is a bigger task than being just a
DepartmentforConstitutionalAVairs.Idonotwant
in any way to underestimate it but the size of it does
not mean it is the wrong organisation of government
anddoesnotmeanitiswronginconstitutionalterms.
Far from it. I think it is right.
Q445 Viscount
Bledisloe:
Making
that
very
interesting connection, if in an uncertain future
another
machinery
of
government
change
is
proposed to dismember the constitutional issues
from the court system and the Ministry of Justice,
you would be very unhappy?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am in favour of the
current arrangements.
Q446 Viscount Bledisloe: The current arrangements
start on 9 May.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Sorry. I stand corrected.
You are absolutely right. I am in favour of the
arrangements running from 9 May.
Q447 Baroness O’Cathain: If you are so enthusiastic
about it, what is your objection to having legislation
putting the framework in a very solid form so people
could see exactly what is happening?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Because I do not think we
need legislation. The fundamental, constitutional
change which occurred was in 2005 where the Lord
Chancellor ceased to be a judge. He was rightly
subjected to a number of duties and obligations and
continued the obligation under the 2003 Act. That is
the right constitutional arrangement. I stand by that
as being absolutely the right arrangement. I am
against ring fencing for the reasons I have given.
Therefore,
legislation
is
neither
required
nor
appropriate.
Q448 Baroness Quin: Perhaps I can also follow up
the concern about your workload. You have just
been askedby theChairman about theconstitutional
issues. You are very much attached to the idea of
retaining all those, including things like electoral
reform, devolution and so on, within the Ministry of
Justice rather than, say, the Cabinet OYce or some
other part of government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, I am. I think the
arrangementsarecorrect.Thereareobjectivityissues
about courts obviously. People need confidence in
relation to electoral administration, in relation to the
working of the Constitution but there is a degree of
objectivity which I think is most appropriately to be
found in a Ministry of Justice.
Q449 Baroness Quin: In terms of the practicalities of
the change, because obviously this change is coming
very
soon,
are
you
confident
that
the
new
arrangementswillensurethenecessarycoordination?
I ask this question having been in the Home OYce
myself and remembering the importance of, say,
weekly meetings between ministers and the heads of
relevantdepartmentssothattherewasagoodflowof
communication. We have seen in recent issues how
important that is and how diYcult it can be if there is
not suYcient communication and coordination.
How is this going to be ensured over this rapid
changeover?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In relation to criminal
justice, those very important issues of coordination
have to some extent been addressed by setting up the
OYce of Criminal Justice Reform which is trying to
operate trilaterally across the three relevant criminal
justice departments.We needto promote and deepen
trilateralism, which I think will become easier under
a Ministry of Justice. In addition, it is not just the
criminal justice issues but there are, for example,
issues concerning relations between the prison estate
and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in
so far as they are responsible for the immigration
estate. We need to be absolutely clear that good
relations, proper working arrangements in respect of
those issues, have to be promoted. I am very
convinced of that.
Q450 Baroness Quin: Will there be regular meetings
between ministers and heads of department in both
the Home OYce and the Ministry of Justice working
together?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes. Obviously the
working arrangements need to be sorted out between
the various departments but I would envisage yes,
there would be. For example, the National Criminal
Justice Board brings together a whole range of heads
of agencies irrespective of which department they
may be connected with. It also brings ministers there
as well. That approach of bringing together agencies
91
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
that interact with each other and ministers who
interact with each other, separate from any Cabinet
Committee system, is extremely important. I think
the Ministry of Justice gives an opportunity to
promote that.
Q451 Baroness Quin: In terms of European Justice
and
Home
AVairs
Councils,
how
are
the
arrangements going to workthere both at ministerial
and oYcial level?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In relation to European
relations, the Justice Ministry will deal with criminal
procedure, sentencing issues and criminal law issues.
The Home Department will continue to deal with
terrorismandprecharge issuesindealing withJustice
and Home AVairs Councils. Obviously the Ministry
of Justice will also continue, as they have done in the
past, to deal with civil justice issues. You will know
from your experience that the justice-interior split is
quite well known. The response of a variety of
European ministers is that they understand what has
happened and are keen to work with the new
arrangements.
Q452 Lord Windlesham: Can we look at the
relationship between the two Houses of Parliament
and your own situation as a peer? Can you envisage
responsibility for constitutional reform being the
responsibility of a new minister? In short, do you
think there are going to besome changes between the
two Houses?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Lord Chancellor
being in the Lords is obviously historically what has
happened over many hundreds of years. I do not
think a Lord Chancellor with responsibility for
constitutional reform in the Lords is remotely
unusual and it has occurred over a considerable
period of time. Prisons, probation, criminal law and
sentencing, as you know much better than I do, have
traditionally been in the Home OYce and the
Secretary of State for Home AVairs has obviously
always practically got to be in the Commons. What
judgment anyone makes in the future about where
the mix should be is a matter for Prime Ministers to
come. A judgment will be required. I do not think it
is impossible for the job to be done in the Lords.
Whetherataparticulartimeitistherightthingorthe
wrong thing depends upon the circumstances at the
time.
Q453 Lord Windlesham: The circumstances at the
time might include individuals. One perhaps in the
whole of your oYce at the moment might be
particularly suited to the House of Lords and might
be brought in by the Prime Minister from outside the
Cabinet and that should be relatively easy in the
Lords but not at all in the Commons. That narrows
the field.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is very diYcult to
speculate on what a future Prime Minister might do
in relation to it. You are right. You can bring in
somebody into the Lords from outside under the
current
arrangements.
The
contrary
argument
obviously
is that there are issues of public
expenditureand issues thathave considerable eVects.
Prisons, probation and crime are issues in some ways
more suited to the Commons. A balance has to be
struck.
Q454 Chairman: If you were to give advice to a
future Prime Ministeras you have to the present one,
what advice would you give?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On what particular topic?
Q455 Chairman: On the very topic we are talking
about.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It would depend upon the
circumstances of the time.
Q456 Chairman: You would have no subtle view?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think it would depend.
Q457 Lord Windlesham: It does allow a degree of
flexibility for the Prime Minister which no doubt the
Prime Minister greatly appreciates.
LordFalconerofThoroton:Yes,Iagreewiththat.Iam
all for flexibility.
Q458 Lord Woolf: Clearly you thought it was
important that there should be the agreement of the
Chief Justice in principle to the change. Is it right to
stress that agreement in principle if in fact the
principle was made subject to his being satisfied on
requirements when we do not know yet whether the
requirements are going to be met or not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I emphasised that because
if it had been said that this is not doable that would
no doubt have had a considerable influence on what
happens.WhattheLordChiefJusticeissaying—Ido
not want in any way to understate the importance of
the process that is going on—is, subject to
safeguards,thisisdoable.Iknowwhathehasinmind
in relation to it. I knew what he had in mind at the
time of the discussions. It involves work, detail,
getting down to reaching an agreement but, on the
basis of what he said, I believe, as I said publicly
before, this is doable but it is very important that
agreement be reached.
Q459 Lord Woolf: You have excluded from the
working party safeguards which certain members of
the judiciary think are necessary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: You are absolutely right.
What I said was I am not in favour of ring fencing. I
do not believe you need to change the basic statutory
or concordat arrangements or the basic role of the
92
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
1 May 2007
Rt Hon Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC
Lord Chancellor. That is the basis on which I am
lookingatitandtheworkingpartyhasbeensetupon
that basis.
Q460 Chairman: You really did not like me saying
“unilateral” but that sounds pretty unilateral to me.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I did not like you saying
“unilateral demarche” and I think it was wrong. I do
not think it reflects the position.
Q461 Viscount Bledisloe: It is not unilateral to say
that it would be nice to have some safeguards; I rule
out the following safeguards ----?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No. This is a friendly
arrangement,not anunfriendly arrangement. We are
thinking of having a Ministry of Justice. Yes, if you
arrangecertainsafeguards,thatwillbeokay. Iwould
not be in favour of these sorts of safeguards. Okay,
although we might want them in play, shall we set up
theworkingpartyonthebasisofthat?Yes,weagreed
to that and I believe, with the people of the talent we
have on the working party, we will be able to reach a
solution to it.
Q462 Lord Woolf: Are not the changes, if they go
ahead on 9 May, going to involve substantial
expenditure just on matters of location, for example,
of staV and handing over of resources? Are you
getting any new resources to cover the transition
from the Home OYce to the Lord Chancellor’s
Department?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There will be expenses in,
for example, new signage, launching, moving staV
from one building to another, IT and stuV like that.
Q463 Lord Woolf: The Home OYce has moved to
new quarters recently.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It has, to Marsham Street.
Q464 Lord
Woolf:
The
Lord
Chancellor’s
Department is due to go to other quarters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We were due in 2008 to go
to Queen Anne’s Gate. The Ministry of Justice will
now use Queen Anne’s Gate as its headquarters.
Although there will be some staV moved to Selborne
House from Marsham Street—for example, NOMS,
which is one element of the change—the vast
majorityofthestaVwillstayinMarshamStreet.Yes,
there are expenses. There is no specific budget for
those additional expenses but I think they are able to
be accommodated.
Q465 Lord Woolf: Being able to be accommodated
means coming possibly out of the court budget.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am under a statutory
obligation to ensure a properly funded court system,
as you know.
Q466 Lord Woolf: What is the bill at the moment
that is outstanding for maintenance of the courts? Is
it approximately 100 million?
LordFalconerofThoroton:Ithinkit ismorethanthat.
Judgments have to be made from time to time as to
what is the critical thing for justice. Is it making sure
that all the maintenance is up to date or is it, from
time to time, making sure that somebody is
represented in their criminal case?
Q467 Lord Woolf: Is that the right approach to the
administration of justice, that the courts’ condition
can deteriorate very substantially? I can remember
the time when I was responsible for matters when
courts up and down the country were leaking.
LordFalconerofThoroton:Thepositionhasimproved
since then, as you will agree. You will also agree that
significantamountsof money havebeenobtained for
maintenance. You will also agree that in the deal
done with the Treasury specifically extra amounts of
money were found. I cannot guarantee that I will
always be able to keep up with all the maintenance in
all the courts. Judgments have to be made.
Q468 Lord Woolf: Do you not agree that your task
is going to be all the more diYcult because of the
ability of the penal system to soak up great sums of
money which have to be found?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I do not think that is
right. The critical issue about the funding of the
courts is what money can be obtained from the
Treasury. I do not believe that getting responsibility
for prisons and probation in any sense weakens the
ability of the Secretary of State for Justice to
negotiate.
Q469 Lord Woolf: Because of these issues, would it
not have been better to take a bit more time over it
than to make a decision by 9 May?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The decision has been
made. We are going ahead on 9 May. I believe that
the detail of it, which is very important, can be
worked out, if not before 9 May then after.
Q470 Chairman: Thank you for your usual lively
evidence.Thisisnotthelasttimetodaywhenyouand
I are going to encounter each other.
LordFalconerofThoroton:Itisallagreement,isitnot?
Chairman: Thank you very much.
93
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
WEDNESDAY 9 MAY 2007
Present
Bledisloe, V
O’Cathain B
Goodlad, L
Quin, B
Holme of Cheltenham, L
Rowlands, L
(Chairman)
Smith of Clifton, L
Lyell of Markyate, L
Windlesham, L
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Professor Robert Hazell, Professor Terence Daintith and Professor Alan Page,
examined.
Q471 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen, and
welcome. Thank you very much for coming and
helping us with our deliberations. For me it is the
second time today being with Professor Hazell;
always a great pleasure. I wonder if you would be
kindenoughjustfortherecordtoidentifyyourselves.
Professor Page: I am Professor Alan Page, Professor
of Public Law and Dean of the School of Law,
University of Dundee.
Professor Daintith: Professor Terence Daintith,
Emeritus Professor of Law, University of London
Professor Hazell: Professor Robert Hazell, Director
of the Constitution Unit at University College
London.
Q472 Chairman: Thank you very much. I think you
know we are doing an inquiry into executive/judicial
relations which have been given particular point by
the initiation today of the split of the Home OYce
into two component parts. I know, Professor Hazell,
you were kind enough to prepare an introductory
statement and we have had a chance to look at it but
if you would like to speak to it briefly and make the
highlights from it, we would be happy to hear that.
Professor Hazell: Thank you. I essentially want to
makethreeorfourpoints,whichIhopewillonlytake
three or four minutes at most. The first is the most
important, I think, and that is to suggest to the
Committee that the gradual separation between the
executive and the judiciary, which started in 2005
following the Constitutional Reform Act of that
year, was always going to be a process and not a
singleevent.Ibelievethatitwasboundintimetolead
todemandsfromthejudiciaryfor furtherseparation,
and those demands are now beginning to emerge, so
although the Ministry of Justice has provided the
occasion for those demands to be formulated by the
judiciary, I do not myself believe that the Ministry of
Justice is itself the cause. The second point, and
flowing from the first, is that the Concordat between
the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice,
which was finalised in 2005 in association with the
passage of the Constitutional Reform Act, would
have been extraordinary if it had got everything
perfectly right first time, and I would like to suggest
again that as the new arrangements settle in, it will
almost certainly need revisiting. There are several
issues which Ithink thejudiciary maywantto reopen
on their side, including the arrangements for
complaints and discipline, for the administration of
the courts, and for settling the budget of the courts.
And the third general point, if I may—and I will stop
after this one—is that the UK is not alone in
considering greater autonomy for the judicial
branch. It is not alone of course in having what you
might call in shorthand an executive model for
managing the courts. The executive branch of
governmentmanagesthecourts serviceinCanada,in
New Zealand and in most of the Australian states,
and in eight countries in Europe, including Austria,
the
Czech
Republic,
Finland
and
Germany.
Interestingly, there is a recent trend throughout
Northern Europe to introduce greater separation of
powers between the executive and the judiciary, and
aspartofthattogivethejudgesgreaterresponsibility
and control for managing the court service, and that
is all very helpfully evidenced in the further material
submitted by the Lord Chief Justice to this inquiry,
which you in turn very helpfully published on your
website so I need not take you through any of the
details of that. That is all I would like to say by way
of introduction.
Q473 Chairman: Very helpful. Could I just ask you
aquicksupplementary? Ithasbeenrepresented tous,
and one can see the force of this, that the Concordat
has a quasi constitutional status, that it is a keystone
of the arch as it were of the new dispensation and it is
not just any other clause from any other bill, it has a
special significance. If that was so, how easy is it to
update it, to adumbrate it, to change it? Is it possible
for it both to have this locking constitutional status
and at the same time be an amendable updatable bit
of practical mechanics?
Professor Hazell: Professor Daintith and Professor
Page may well want to comment on this also, I hope
they will. To my mind it has the status of a
constitutional convention, and all constitutional
94
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Professor Robert Hazell, Professor Terence Daintith and Professor Alan Page
conventions are liable to evolve over time in the light
of experience and new circumstances, and I would be
very surprised if the Concordat did not itself evolve
partlyin itsinterpretation, as other conventions have
evolved,butpartlyitcould berevisited, andIhope at
some point it will be revisited, and possibly this
inquiry could provide the trigger for that. I do not
think myself it is written in tablets of stone.
Q474 Chairman: Can I just get an answer from your
other two colleagues? Professor Daintith?
Professor Daintith: Yes, I quite agree with that. I
would expect the Concordat to be developed and
modifiedovertimeandthatprocesstomy mindinno
way impairs its constitutional significance. Indeed it
is part of the genius of the British constitution to
evolve in this way and I would expect that to happen
in this instance.
Q475 Chairman: Thank you very much. Professor,
do you want to add anything?
ProfessorPage:TheonlythingthatIwouldaddisthat
the Concordat is, as I understand it, given statutory
eVect
to
a
greater
or
lesser
extent
in
the
Constitutional Reform Act which in turn has
consequences for the process of amending the
Concordat. We are not simply talking about revising
a convention; we are actually talking about changing
legislation.
Chairman: That is very helpful.
Q476 Viscount Bledisloe: Taking the parts of the
Concordatthatarenotinthestatute,doyouconsider
that they are amendable by the two parties to the
Concordat or does Parliament have some role in
blessing an amendment because Parliament may say,
“Well, the Lord Chief Justice has given way on this
but we would not have passed the Bill if the
Concordat had been weakened to that extent”?
Professor Hazell: That is of course a matter for
Parliament. If this Committee were to recommend
that the Concordat at some point be re-visited, the
Committee might like to add the rider that the
Concordat
having
been
revised
by
the
two
originating parties Parliament might want to
scrutinise that revised draft. It is a matter for
yourselves, if I may suggest.
Q477 Chairman: But it is a matter for three parties?
Professor Hazell: Yes.
Q478 Viscount Bledisloe: That is really the question,
is it a matter for two parties or three parties? Can the
two parties just come along and say, “We have
amended it, bad luck”?
Professor Page: Ideally it should be a matter for the
three parties. One of the ironies of this process is that
the third party makes fleeting appearances from time
to time but it does not have an established role in the
process, which I would have thought, without any
question, it should have on matters as fundamental
as this.
Professor Daintith: We are not perhaps very familiar
with purely judicial/executive arrangements in this
country for reasons which are rooted in the
constitution, and for that reason I think the
Concordat does confront Parliament with a rather
new kind of issue.
Q479 Chairman: Indeed, the three party/two party
question. I would like to move the focus back more
widely to the question of the reforms that have been
instituted today, the introduction of the Ministry of
Justice. The question which is exercising the
Committee is is this purely a machinery of
government sort of change led in the traditional way
that
governments
change
departments’
responsibilities, or should it be regarded as having at
least elements of significant constitutional change
about it, and if it is the case that it is at least
constitutionallytinged,ifnotmore,thenthequestion
would bewhatwould betheproperprocess inamore
ideal world of prior consultation both with the
judiciary
and
Parliament?
Professor
Daintith,
perhaps you would care to start oV on that?
Professor Daintith: Thereis certainlyaway of looking
at this which says this is another example of
machinery of government changes, it is a further
accretion to the range of responsibilities of DCA, the
Lord Chancellor, and as such it fits firmly within a
structure with which we are familiar which we have
been using for 60 years now; so be it. My view would
be that even though it continues to have these formal
characteristics—seen against the background of the
changes which culminated in 2005 it takes on a
diVerent complexion, and I think your wording of
“constitutional tinge” is very much the way that I
would see it. That does, I think, bring us again to
uncharted territory in the sense first that we cannot
quite see how Parliament should be involved in a
matter which involves both of the other arms of the
constitution and, secondly, provision was not
explicitly made in the Concordat for any kind of
discussion in this sort of area, and we have therefore
seen government, move ahead as if it was simply in a
pre-2003 situation and nothing more needed to be
doneotherthantotellpeoplewhatitwasgoingtodo.
Having said those things, I must say I do not
immediately have a proposal to make to the
Committee as to the precise machinery which should
have been applied in this particular case. Clearly if
prior consultation with the judiciary did not take
place before the announcement was made, or before
the proposal was fixed in the mind of government,
then I think that is very unfortunate, and one would
hope that in any future case bearing on the
95
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Professor Robert Hazell, Professor Terence Daintith and Professor Alan Page
administrative structure relating to the discharge of
judicial functions that omission would not occur. To
gobeyondthat,tosuggestaspecificmachineryinthis
case is a step I would not yet be able to take.
Q480 Chairman: Thank you. Do either of the other
witnesses care to add anything?
Professor Page: Could I make two points? One is a
brief historical point, if I can make it briefly, which is
this idea that changes to the
machinery of
government are a matter for the executive and the
executivealoneis actuallyrelativelyrecent.Itwasthe
case in the not-too-recent past that new departments
were established by statute which did in the normal
process provide opportunities for deliberation and
consultation,and youcouldsay thatthesetting upof
a Ministry of Justice is the kind of change that would
have benefited from that process. That is one point
that I would like to make. The second point that I
would like to make to is to pick up what Professor
Daintith
was
saying about
the
constitutional
complexion of this. It is not just a machinery of
justice change because it does have a very real
constitutional significance, which is the point that
ProfessorHazell raised, namely the consequences for
the relationship between the funding of the judicial
system and judicial independence. I think that is the
key constitutional issue which is raised by this
machinery of government change.
Professor Hazell: I agree that the change has
constitutional implications in terms of a better
process to follow. The Committee may already be
aware that the Public Administration Committee in
the House of Commons has held an evidence-taking
session on precisely this point. The witnesses were
Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, and
Professor Christopher Hood from Oxford, and from
memory they made two main points, that there
shouldhavebeenproperconsultation,buttheymade
a further point which was a warning especially from
Lord Butler that in his experience of other similar
changes in Whitehall, be it merging or demerging
major departments, the changes absorb a huge
amount of senior management time, often much
more than is initially anticipated, and it can take not
months but years for a new department to bed down.
Chairman: That no doubt is true managerially but
quite how significant constitutionally it is is a
diVerent matter. Baroness Quin?
Q481 Baroness Quin: You were saying, Professor
Page,that itwas relatively recent. Can you puta date
on that and whether there was a big discussion when
the system changed?
Professor Page: The early 1960s. In 1964 the first
Wilson Government set up three departments by
statute. However, at the end of the Second World
Wartherewasdiscussionaboutit.Thatwaswhenthe
transfer of functions legislation was first introduced
and statements were made at the time that when they
were talking about not just minor transfers of
functions but the setting up whole new departments
then, as in the past, that would continue to be done
by way of statute, by way of primary legislation. Of
course, that was just quietly forgotten about because
it is enormously convenient from the point of view of
the executive to be able to do this with the minimum
amount of legislative encumbrance.
Q482 Lord Rowlands: The Welsh OYce was never
created by statute.
Professor Page: But theWelsh OYce was,what, 1969?
Q483 Lord Rowlands: 1964.
Professor Page: That was one of the first examples
then of the new dispensation.
Q484 Lord Goodlad: In terms of the capacity within
government to deal with “rule of law” issues and to
defendtheindependenceofthejudiciarywhatarethe
implications of combining the responsibilities of the
Lord
Chancellor
and
Secretary
of
State
for
Constitutional AVairs with new responsibilities for
criminal
law,
sentencing
policy,
prisons
and
probation?
Professor Page: I think it raises the fears that we have
already referredtoand whichhavebeenexpressedby
the judiciary throughout this process. I think that is
the main implication. I do not think there is anything
objectionable
itself
in
this
combination
of
responsibilities. I say that coming from a part of the
United Kingdom which has a Ministry of Justice
which combines not only these functions but also
responsibility for policing as well, but I think to
repeat what I said earlier, that is the constitutional
significance of the change.
Professor Daintith: Yes, I would say if you take that
factor away, it is not easy to see exactly what new
problems will arise. If one tries to imagine how these
functions might interfere with one another, that
seems quite diYcult, looking at the way in which a
department would be structured with its separate
agencies, for example, within the department—
prisons, say, and Her Majesty’s Court Service—with
an appropriate range of junior ministers each of
whom will have commitment to a particular part of
the department. If we take away the financial
considerations, which we may talk about further, I
would feel relatively comfortable with this particular
grouping.
Q485 Chairman: Perhaps this is an over-theoretical
issue but it is one I would like your perception of,
which is in this context the Lord Chancellor, as it
were, policing himself. He is responsible within
Cabinet for seeing that the rule of law is respected
96
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Professor Robert Hazell, Professor Terence Daintith and Professor Alan Page
and that the judiciary are independent, that is clearly
hisresponsibility,buttowhatextentishethen,which
I think is objectionable in the law, a judge in his own
cause because he is at the same time theoretically
responsible for ultimately blowing the whistle on
himself? Is there an intellectual problem there?
Professor Hazell: I think that problem already existed
in the Department for Constitutional AVairs and
before that in the Lord Chancellor’s Department
becauseboththosedepartmentswereresponsible,for
example,fortheLegalAidFund,andpolicyonLegal
Aid is sometimes the subject of challenges by way of
judicial review, which may lead to spending
implications, and so there is a conflict of interest at
least to that extent built in in the old arrangements.
Q486 Chairman: Yes, so it is nothing new?
Professor Hazell: No.
Professor Daintith: We might say that the Lord
Chancellor perhaps is less likely to yield to irritations
of the moment and criticise judges in his position as
Lord Chancellor than would the Home Secretary in
his position.
Q487 Chairman: Make it more sympathetic.
Professor Daintith: Yes, it may actually produce the
“Caesar’s wife” syndrome.
Q488 Baroness Quin: I think this question is a
variation on a theme. Do you have any concerns
about the same government department being
responsible for the Human Rights Act and its
emphasis on the rights of the individual and prisons,
probation, criminal law and sentencing policy which
obviously are related to the curtailment of liberty?
Professor Daintith: I think I would have to imagine a
fairly remarkable scenario to get concerned about
that and the sort of scenario would be in which, say,
one part of the department put pressure on another
part of the department to somehow go easy on
humanrights.Given thattheDepartmentin thiscase
has a role of promotion and monitoring and general
oversight of human rights policy rather than, as it
were, some kind of core responsibility for making
sure that everybody behaves themselves in terms of
human rights, it does not seem to me that even that
pressure would bevery important andI cannot really
imagine it being exercised. The other scenario you
could try to imagine would be if, for example, the
Home OYce responded to a DCA circular or MoJ
circular saying, “What are you doing about human
rights?” by saying, “Well, what are you doing, you
don’t seem to be doing very well recently?” I can just
about imagine that but I cannot really see it as a
significant constitutional danger.
Q489 BaronessQuin:Givenyourexperienceofother
jurisdictions, has this ever been a problem elsewhere
or is it not something that causes diYculties?
Professor Hazell: May I respond briefly to that
because it is helpful that there are real live ministries
of
justice
amongst
our
close
Commonwealth
constitutional cousins inAustralia,CanadaandNew
Zealand, and we will benefit in a moment from
hearing from Professor Matthew Palmer from New
Zealand. My understanding is that in Canada and
New Zealand, where they both have a bill of rights,
the Ministry of Justice in New Zealand and the
Department of Justice in Canada are also both
responsible for criminal law and criminal justice
amongst their functions, and I do not think that has
given rise to any diYculty in practice.
Chairman: Thank you. We will move on to Lord
Smith.
Q490 Lord Smith of Clifton: Gentlemen, in terms of
workload, is it realistic to expect one person to take
overall charge of all the responsibilities of the Lord
Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional
AVairs as well as a significant proportion of the
Home Secretary’s responsibilities? Is there any
possible danger that constitutional and legal matters
will be neglected in favour of issues such as prisons?
Professor Page: I would have said simply in response
to that that is entirely a matter and comes down to a
matteroftheorganisationofthedepartment,theway
in which the Ministry is actually organised, and if it
is organised in a way which ensures that due
prominence is given to the various aspects of its
responsibilities for which organisation the Minister
and Secretary of State is ultimately responsible, so,
no, I do not have any real concerns.
Q491 Lord SmithofClifton: Soyouput your faithin
some sort of Chinese walls?
Professor Page: No, I just put my faith in
departmental organisation. I would have thought
Chinese walls would be in some sense highly
undesirable.
Q492 Chairman: It is a matter clearly of legitimate
opinionbutIsupposethedivisionoftheHomeOYce
to some extent—and this has appeared in the
newspapers—is a reflection of the view that that was
too big a workload for one department, so however
well organised it was too much so I suppose the
implication of Lord Smith’s question is is this new
constellationprima facietoomuchorjustamatterof
getting on with it?
Professor Page: Has clarity of focus in one part of the
system been achieved at the expense of loss of clarity
and focus in another? It is a danger.
97
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Professor Robert Hazell, Professor Terence Daintith and Professor Alan Page
Professor Hazell: May I respond partly drawing on
my own experience as a civil servant for 14 years in
the old Home OYce. It depends enormously on how
much the Secretary of State as head of the
department is willing to share the workload with his
junior ministers, and that in turn depends to some
extent on how much the Prime Minister encourages
members of the Cabinet to share their workloads
with junior ministers. It depends also on the political
interests of the Secretary of State himself or herself.
Ithappensthatthepresent LordChancelloris keenly
interested in constitutional matters and they get his
closeattention.PerhapsthisCommitteealsocanhelp
to ensure that any future Lord Chancellor will
continue to take a close interest in constitutional
mattersthroughthekindsof issues whichyou choose
to take an interest in.
Q493 Chairman: I expect we will do our best but
would you think that within this new constellation
that constitutional aVairs, for instance, might find
themselves hived oV to a junior minister?
Professor Hazell: I would be surprised if that were
the case.
Professor Daintith: But it could be. It is interesting to
notice how diYcult it is to find constitutional aVairs
withintheorganisationchartofthedepartment.You
havetolookveryhardforitandwhenyoufindit,you
realisethatitincludesanumberofotherthingswhich
could be seen as being of serious significance such as
electoral matters. Although it is very important, in
termsof personnelitis apretty smallpart of whatthe
Department does and it is dwarfed obviously by
HMCS, it is dwarfed by the Prison Service, but I do
not think that is necessarily the way in which we
should think about this issue of overload. It is worth
remembering that the Lord Chancellor was always
thought to be overloaded at a time when the size of
the Department was far, far smaller. The Lord
Chancellor would be in court in the morning, on the
Woolsack
in
the
afternoon,
and
doing
his
departmental business in the middle of the night.
Q494 Lord Lyell of Markyate: The judiciary, who
were before this Committee last week, you have
probably seen what they said, seemed to have their
feet pretty much on the ground in the same territory
that they have had them on the ground for the last 20
years, and probably much longer, in that they have
called for safeguards in the form of an open and
transparent process for setting and amending the
annual
budget
for
running
the
courts
(with
Parliament as an arbiter if the judiciary and the
executive disagree). They also called for greater
autonomy from ministers for Her Majesty’s Court
Service. In terms of constitutional principle, how do
you see the pros and cons of moving in that direction
and is it realistic to suggest that Parliament could
have a role when disputes arise?
Professor Daintith: There are two or three questions
thereIthinkwhichonewouldnotnecessarilywantto
answer in the same general sense. One question is the
questionofautonomyfromministers,anditseemsto
me perfectly feasible within British constitutional
practice to imagine a more autonomous Her
Majesty’s Court Service. Executive agencies have
diVerent degrees of autonomy. I know that the
Government have ruled out legislation but it is
clearlynotimpossibletoputanexecutiveagencyona
legislative footing and eVectively make it into a non-
ministerial department. That would give you a great
deal more autonomy. It would create, however, the
sorts of diYculties to which the judges themselves
drew attention in their evidence, that is to say
diYculties of judicial accountability to Parliament,
how to manage that particular problem. If you make
the service more independent of ministers and more
dependent upon decisions by judges, how then do
youanswerfortheconsequencesofthosedecisionsto
the department? That is a serious issue. In terms of
the financial question I do find it quite hard to put a
frameworkaroundwhatthejudgeshaveaskedfor,in
terms of an open and transparent process of fixing a
budget in which Parliament would in some way be
involved, presumably at a fairly early stage, in order
that it could arbitrate at some point down the road.
GiventhatIwouldhaveexpectedjudgesalways tobe
saying they wanted more money for the Courts
Service than the department or the Treasury were
prepared ab initio to give, I would have thought that
you would always tend to be in a situation where
there was at least an odour of disagreement floating
around. I do not quite see how an open and
transparent process can go on, therefore, without
risking theproductionofconsiderable disagreements
and a quite diYcult constitutional situation, year by
year, in relation to the fixing of this budget. That is if
judges are significantly involved in the process. If
they can stay out of it somehow and achieve this
autonomy, that would be perhaps the best way
through, but my understanding is that they do not
really want to stay out of it.
Q495 Lord Lyell of Markyate: I think the reality,
going back again to my experience on Legal Aid and
on the general costings of the Courts Service in the
late 1980s, and the way that budgeting was done in
the Attorney General’s department, they would like
tosetouttheirstallinaprettyclearway—andIthink
this is what they would call transparent—as to why
theyneededmoremoney;andthentheywouldliketo
get the money that they were awarded ring-fenced
because, as they told this Committee—and one can
understand it—when the pressure for money on, for
example, building more prison places is heaving very
98
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Professor Robert Hazell, Professor Terence Daintith and Professor Alan Page
strongly, they can see the Legal Aid budget, or
particularly the Courts Service’s budget, getting
squeezed, and that is what they are frightened about.
Of course, now quite a number of them are spending
a lot of their time doing administration, and it will be
quite a serious problem for the really top-quality
judicial power—being deflected on to admin.
Professor Daintith: Yes, but I think that is the price
that has to be paid for serious input into the process
of determining the appropriate level of servicing for
the judicial function. Unless judges are prepared to
say, as they were at some points prepared to in the
past, “We will trust the Lord Chancellor to provide
the services we need”, there will need to be that kind
of organised input from the judiciary. So far as the
notion of putting out your stall is concerned, again
the question in my mind is who exactly is going to set
out the stall? Is it HMCS and, if it is HMCS, is the
judiciarygoingtobesatisfiedwiththedegreeofinput
it has into that process? So far as the ring-fencing of
the amount is concerned, it seems to me diYcult to
moveinthisdirectionunlessHMCShasitsownvote.
It is also perhaps a thought that one could best move
in this direction by modifying the terms of the
concordat, so as to oVer some input not just into the
process of planning within HMCS but also in the
process of departmental reconsideration of the
allocation of funds within the year, which I think is
one of the concerns the judiciary have.
Q496 Lord Rowlands: Last week, Lord Justice
Thomas seemed quite enamoured by the Irish,
Netherlands and Danish arrangements. As Lord
Lyell says, we have read the appendices, and they
have gone for some kind of councils of the judiciary.
However, I am not at all clear—and perhaps our
expert witness could advise us—whether this has
achieved
ring-fenced
budgets
for
the
court
administrations in these three cases.
ProfessorDaintith:Iamnotabletosaywhetherithas.
Professor Hazell: I do not know either, and further
enquiries would need to be made of those three
jurisdictions, because the very helpful evidence
submitted by the judiciary runs out at that point; but
it is a very apposite question. In recent times, I think
that the Courts Service have been more concerned
about adjustments to their budget mid-year, in
particular because of overspends on the Legal Aid
Fund, than the process for settling the budget in the
first place. There are therefore two separate issues to
be addressed. One is how the budget is settled in the
first place and, secondly, whether or not it can be
ring-fenced. May I make two other points? One is
that I think that the argument about the greater risk
to the Courts Service inside a larger Ministry of
Justicepotentiallycutsbothways.Thebudgetforthe
Courts Service itself is relatively small. It is smaller
than the LegalAid Fund; it is quite alot smaller than
the PrisonServicebudget.Forgiveme,Idonotknow
the exact numbers, but suppose for the sake of
argument that the budget for the Courts Service is £1
billion and the old DCA had a budget of £5 billion in
toto, and that has now increased following the
creation of a Ministry of Justice to £10 billion. One
couldsayitiseasiertoprotectthebudgetof£1billion
within a total budget of £10 billion, because there are
more other votes or lines within the budget from
which savings can be sought. I therefore do not see
the arguments as necessarily all one way or
potentially negative.
Q497 Chairman: There are moments when you
remind us that you have the cloven hoof of a former
senior civil servant. That is very impressive!
Professor Hazell: May I make one further point? This
isonthewiderconstitutionalissuesofthediYcultyof
setting a budget for one of the other branches of
government: a branch which is not the executive. It
might be useful to look, as a broad analogy, at how
the budget is set for Parliament—also a separate
branch of government. It is not terribly instructive,
however, because Parliament oVers two examples.
The Commons lays its own estimate, as I understand
it; while for the Lords the Treasury lays an estimate
for the budget of this House. There are two possible
precedents that might be looked at in seeking for a
new model forsettling abudget for the judiciary,if in
future that is to be regarded as an increasingly
separate branch.
Chairman: I think that the commonsensical question
which you have implied is what are the alternative
modelswithintheBritishpolityoffundingsomething
not simply by the straightforward process of
negotiation with the Treasury, and then intra-
departmental negotiation to fund the various
functions, and what examples are there in toto
outside that normal, Treasury-driven cycle?
Lord Lyell of Markyate:Could I interpose, whileyou
are thinking about Denmark in particular but also
other countries, that their judicial systems are very
diVerentfromourown.Iwouldjusthighlightthatthe
previous position of Ole Due, the distinguished
former President of the European Court of Justice,
was the equivalent of Permanent Secretary in the
LordChancellor’sDepartment.Thatcertainlywould
have been, and I think still would be, pretty
unthinkable in this country.
Q498 Lord Rowlands: The reason I raised it was not
because I am rather enamoured by the Irish, Danish
ortheNetherlands’model,butbecauseitlookstome
asifthejudiciaryareeitherclutchingatastrawinthis
case, or is there a matter of substance for us to
debate? The other issue that arises is not only the
issue of finance but also of accountability, in these
systems where you make autonomous councils for
99
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Professor Robert Hazell, Professor Terence Daintith and Professor Alan Page
the judiciary and boards. In our present system, as a
Member of Parliament one could get up and ask
about the state of your court; you could actually nag
the Minister about the expenditure on your court.
Presumably this would take that whole area of
parliamentary accountability out of it.
Professor Page: I suppose that is the con. When the
questionwasaskedintermsof prosandcons,thecon
is that you lose ministerial responsibility, ministerial
accountability to Parliament; but the question is
whether that is a bad thing or is it impossible to
conceive of any alternatives to it? My own sense is
that the existing model, to use the language that
ProfessorHazellusedearlier—theexecutivemodel—
is simply unsustainable, because the risk is of this
kind of dispute running on and on, until you do find
amodelwhichissustainable;whichwillinvolvesome
form of limited autonomy. I do not think that it is
beyond the wit of man, or woman for that matter, to
come up with such a model and to address the
perfectly legitimate concerns that you have about
how accountability will be secured within such a
system.
Professor Daintith: I wonder whether we should not
be taking a slightly wider view than the HMCS view,
because it is quite clear that part of the driver for the
changehereisthisnotionofseamlessmanagementof
justice. I notice the objections that the Lord Chief
Justice had to that notion, in that he did not want
judges to be a part of a seamless anything and that
independence was very important; but, at the same
time, one is looking both at the provision of premises
and facilities for the courts and also at the issue of
Legal Aid for litigants. Both seem to me to be an
important part of the question of access to justice,
anditis really onaccess to justicethatthe issue ofthe
relationship between finance and independence is
based. There seems to me to be an argument which
might well be made, to the eVect that there must be
someauthority—andinourconstitutionitwillbethe
executive under responsibility to Parliament—which
can look at the whole of the justice budget and, for
example, take a view on that relationship between
provision for Legal Aid and provision for judicial
services. The two thingsmay, if they get seriouslyout
of balance, as by protecting judicial services but not
protecting Legal Aid, have a more deleterious eVect
on the provision of justice than might be the case
now. This is therefore something that we should take
Examination of Witness
Witness: Dr Matthew Palmer, examined.
Q501 Chairman: It is very good of you to come, Dr
Palmer, and I think that we will benefit greatly from
getting some of your comparative insights from your
work in and around the Ministry of Justice in New
into account in deciding just what it is that ought to
be ring-fenced, if anything, and to what extent there
should be some permeability between these justice
functions which currently we have placed within
particular executive departments.
Chairman: If I may say so, I think that is extremely
wellsaid.ThereisalotofconcerninthisHouseatthe
momentaboutthepotentialdecimationofLegalAid,
and it is part of the same piece of access to justice. I
think thatyouareright to drawourattentionto that.
Q499 Lord Rowlands: We have talked about the
Irish, the Danes and the Dutch. What about the
Scots, Professor Page? Do you have any experience?
How transportable is it?
Professor Page: We are not there yet, because we too
had the executive model but we are now talking
about replacing it. Interestingly, that conclusion—if
it is indeed a conclusion—has been arrived at by
separate routes. One is an internal review of the
Courts Service, which raised the question of the
relationship
with
the
judiciary,
and
the
unsatisfactoriness, if you like, of the lack of any
connection between the judiciary and the Courts
Service. There was therefore a feeling that it was
falling short in many respects. Also, separately from
that, an exercise which to a large degree has been a
catch-up exercise on the Constitutional Reform Act
2005, addressing some of the issues that were
addressed here three years ago, including this
question
of
judicial
independence
and
the
relationshipbetweenthat,thebudgetsandthemoney
that they need to do the job.
Q500 Lord Rowlands: Is the future in Scotland to go
for some kind of autonomous executive agency?
Professor Page: Yes, I think it is almost certain. To
answer, or try to answer the question you raised
earlier about accountability, what they are talking
about is a revised Courts Service, which should
operate within a policy framework—to use the
language of agencies working within a policy
resources framework agreed with Ministers—which
would be agreed between the agency and the
executive and which the executive would then fund.
Chairman: That is most helpful. Could I thank all
threeofyou?Ithasbeenofverygreatassistancetous.
If you do find any arrie `re-pense és that you feel you
should share with us, we would be grateful to have
them. Meanwhile, thank you very much indeed.
Zealand. May I kick oV by a very straightforward
question? What can we learn in England and Wales
from the New Zealand experience of a Ministry of
Justice? What are your lessons for us?
100
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Dr Matthew Palmer
Dr Palmer: I would like to start by thanking the
Committee very much for inviting me to appear. It is
an honour and a privilege for me. Perhaps I should
saythattherearetwoareasinwhichitispossiblethat
I may be able to be of assistance. One is the relatively
abstract question of constitutional dialogue between
diVerent branches of government. The other is with
respect to New Zealand’s experience of a seemingly
integrated and then a non-integrated Ministry of
Justice. I am happy to talk about either of those.
Q502 Chairman: I think that the first one, given the
subject of our inquiry, might be particularly
interesting, so why not start with that?
DrPalmer:TheworkthatIamcurrentlydoingcomes
out of the Canadian experience where, in their
academic literature and law over the last 10 years,
they have had a significant debate about what
constitutional dialogue is between branches of
government. What they conceive that to be is, where
Parliament passes legislation and the Canadian
Supreme Court is able to strike it down, they have
argued that what is going on there is not the ultimate
question of whether one branch of government is
supreme over another. They have characterised it as
an iterative process, where Parliament passes a law,
thecourtsinterpretit,andthenParliamentcanrevisit
that; and in 60 per cent of the cases there they do
revisit it. So there is a great amount of literature on
constitutional dialoguein Canada, but whatI should
say about that is this. This term is there applied to
that very formal exercise of the conventional
functions of each branch of government: passing
legislation, interpreting law, and making policy in
terms of the executive. I guess this is one of the two
points that I would like to leave you with on my own
behalf. That is, it is possible to talk about
constitutionaldialogueintwosenses.Oneisthatvery
formal sense, and the other—especially given the
other topic that you are considering today—is that
informal sense of people from the judiciary and the
executive branches of government sitting down and
talking to each other. My suggestion, I suppose, is
that there is a value in confining, as far as possible,
the interaction between branches of government to
the formal exercise of their constitutional function.
For example, when we are discussing the budgeting
process—and you were discussing that with my
predecessors at this table—in New Zealand, which I
can talk about shortly, if it were to occur that
insuYcient funding were devoted to the court
administration services, there is a conventional tool
that the judiciary would have to make clear the
consequences of that position; that is, by finding that
sodoing breachesthehumanrights ofthose litigants,
perhaps those criminal defendants, whose rights are
at issue. If a criminal trial is delayed for too long, it
canbecomeamatterofhumanrights.Intheordinary
course of the judicial function, that can be brought
fairly strongly and clearly to the attention of
executive government by a finding of illegality. I
wonder whether I might stop there.
Q503 Chairman: Pause for a second, because it
seems to me that what you are positing is what we
might call capital-D dialogue and lower case-D
dialogue. It has been represented to us by a number
of
witnesses,
and
there
was
an
interesting
intervention by Lady Scotland, saying “Look, we
talk all the time between the executive and the
judiciary. The talk goes on all the time”—and I am
quitepreparedtoaccept that.Ithink thatis whatyou
are calling lower-case dialogue—people talking to
each other—alwaysa good thing; noproblem; “Let’s
get on with it”. However, you are positing here
something more formal in terms of a process, which
is a capital-D dialogue. I still want to understand, if
you can help us, what are the characteristics of that
formal conversation and its uses and limits, because
it sounds very interesting.
Dr Palmer: I suppose that the characteristics of the
capital-D dialogue that I am describing are simply
theordinarycharacteristicsofeachofthebranchesof
government fulfilling its function. Parliament passes
legislation; the courts interpret that legislation. In so
doing, both branches of government are coming to a
view about what the law is and what it should be. To
the extent that each of those branches of government
considers what the other has said, that does take the
form of a big-D dialogue, in my view. The diYculty
with it—and also, if I may suggest, the diYculty with
the small-D dialogue, which inhibits understanding
between branches of government—is that they are
speaking in diVerent languages, in my view. The
judges are talking the language of common law; an
elected houseofParliament is talkingthelanguage of
politics; and the executive branch of government is
talking the language of policy. Each of those
languagesrepresentsamindsetoraculturewhichhas
certain inbuilt biases and can have diYculty in
understanding where the other languages are coming
from. This makes for diYculty, therefore, in both
levels of dialogue. That would be my suggestion.
Q504 Chairman: If we go beyond cultural empathy
and trying to understand each other’s languages,
which is clearly diYcult, are you saying that in New
Zealand there is a clear set of processes for this
capital-Ddialogue,whichyoucouldtellusaboutand
whichwouldinformourwayofthinking?Thisisvery
interesting territory but, beyond the fact that we
should listen to each other’s languages, I am still not
quiteclearhowonecouldsayofNewZealand,“Here
is a useful set of capital-D dialogue which might be
helpful to us”.
101
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Dr Matthew Palmer
Dr Palmer: I do not consider that New Zealand has
any better a set of that sort of dialogue than does the
United Kingdom, I am afraid.
Q505 Chairman: That is disappointing.
Dr Palmer: Icould outline the ways in which it works
there, if the Committee would be interested.
Chairman:IthinkthatLadyQuinhas aquestion, but
if there were a paper or something on that, it would
be of great interest to us.
Q506 BaronessQuin:Iwasjustthinkingofwhatyou
were saying about the human rights being invoked as
a decisive factor in budget discussions. Can you give
examples of how that has changed a government
decision as a result?
Dr Palmer: There is an example I am familiar with in
New Zealand—and I should say at this point that
possibly I should apologise for having worked in the
New Zealand Treasury at one point! The area of the
Treasury I was in charge of included vote justice. In
any budget-setting, priority-setting exercise, oYcials
in the department, in the Treasury, and the Ministers
respectively would come to a view about what
expenditure has greater priority. There was a
particular point in one budget process in which I
participated where there was a legal argument made
in court that the Crown Law OYce had to defend
against, which was that a particular trial had been
delayed for so long that it had essentially become a
violation of human rights, and that the criminal
ought to be let go for that reason—that the trial
should be discontinued. The point was not taken by
the court, but the court took the opportunity to
observe that it was possible that it could be if it went
onfor verymuchlonger. Atthatpoint, whatyousaw
within the budget-setting machinery was Ministers
deciding that perhaps they did need to allocate
significantly more resources to the courts for that
purpose than they previously had; because what they
did not want was criminals on the streets. That is an
illustration, therefore.
Q507 Chairman: The human rights was the prism
through which this meaningful exchange was
happening.
Dr Palmer: Yes, in the ordinary course of a court
delivering a judgment in a case.
Q508 Chairman: Going on for a moment to the
other half of the proposition of telling us about how
the Ministry of Justice experience in New Zealand
works, are there any lessons that you think might be
relevant for us?
Dr Palmer: The New Zealand organisation of justice
has gone through diVerent phases. For a long period
of time, ending in 1994, we had an integrated
Department of Justice which included responsibility
for policy advice, correction services and court
administration services, as well as electoral services
and some others. It was therefore an integrated
model.In1994–95thatmodelwassplitup.Therewas
a management fashion in favour of the split of policy
and operational functions within departments. It
should also be acknowledged that the judiciary were
pushing for a separate department for courts. There
was a review process with consultation of all relevant
stakeholders—asIsupposetheyarecallednow—and
that review process yielded the splitting up of the
department into aMinistry of Justice concerned only
with policy and electoral matters, a Department for
Courts, and a Department of Corrections. That
situation lastedfrom 1995,whenitwas implemented,
to2003. In2003 therewasanotherchangeoffashion,
and the Department for Courts was reintegrated
back into the Ministry of Justice—putting it back
together with the policy function.
Q509 Chairman: So then we are back to two?
Dr Palmer: To two. There is currently underway a
reviewaboutwhethertheDepartmentofCorrections
should also be added back in.
Q510 Baroness O’Cathain: Bringing them back to
where they were.
Dr Palmer: Yes.
Q511 Chairman: Is there anything we should learn
from that?
DrPalmer:IsupposewhatIwouldtakefromitisthat
fashions in organisational management design do
change. The other thing, I suppose, is that in some
ways
the
main
purpose
of
those
sorts
of
organisational
changes—the
main
legitimate
purpose, in my view—is to eVect a change in the
management and organisational culture, which you
can do if you have a large-scale organisational
restructuring but is otherwise quite diYcult to
achieve. You tend to find that these things come in
cycles,perhapsbecauseinthelifeofanyorganisation
it reaches a point where a change in organisational
culture
and
management
is
needed
more
comprehensively than otherwise: in which case you
have one of these restructurings. It has always been
treated as a part of the function of executive
government in New Zealand for these changes to be
managedas amatterof machinery of government.In
the 1994 change there was significant consultation
with the judiciary. In the 2003 change I understand
there was not significant consultation, but I do not
think that there was any particular constitutional
principle that was breached or at issue in either
change. Whatever organisational boundaries you
havearound thevarious divisionsthat make upthese
organisations, the majordeterminant of eVectiveness
is the competence of the people involved and their
102
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Dr Matthew Palmer
relationship and management skills, and whatever
organisational structure you have is no guarantee
that either that will work or it will not.
Chairman: I am sure that is very wise.
Q512 Lord Windlesham: You are extremely well
informed, I can see, on matters which cover our own
inquiry. What you have had to say has been of real
value, and I think that especially the secretariat will
want to study very carefully what you have said in
answer to the Chairman’s opening questions to you.
Just to pick up one or two more—and to some extent
they are very detailed indeed—you are writing about
constitutional dialogue between the executive, the
judiciary and the legislature and the Westminster
systems. Are you able to tell us, even in a preliminary
way at this stage, what conclusions you have drawn
about what arrangements work well and what
arrangements work less well?
DrPalmer:IthinktheprimaryconclusionthatIhave
drawninthisregardistheonewhichIperhapshinted
at before, which is that it is constitutionally desirable
for each of the branches of government to stick to
their knitting, if you like: to do what it is that
constitutes their function and to interact with other
branches of government through that formal
function. This, I think, derives from the fact that it is
important that there be a dialogue between branches
of the government. It is important that those
branches are diVerent, because that is how we get
diVerent perspectives being brought to bear on
constitutional issues; but because they are speaking
in diVerent languages, as I have said before, we
perhaps need to have the help of some translators in
some of those discussions. It does occur to me,
coming from a jurisdiction which does not have an
upper house, that an institution such as this
Committeecouldin somewaysbearelativelyneutral
ground for the conversation between the judicial and
executivebranchesofgovernmenttobefacilitated,at
times when they might otherwise get too fraught.
Q513 Chairman:
So
now
we
have
to
oVer
interpretation services, have we?
Dr Palmer: Sometimes there is value in simply
bringing people together and asking them to listen
more carefully to what each other is saying.
Q514 Lord Windlesham: In what fields would you
think that England and Wales should draw on
experience
in
New
Zealand,
particularly
the
experience of a Ministry of Justice?
Dr Palmer: Again, the most important mechanism
for small-D dialogue between judicial and executive
government in New Zealand has been the creation of
the Courts Executive Council, which was established
when the new Department for Courts was created. It
was a mechanism for dialogue at a formal level, on
the recordtransparently between judicialoYcersand
oYcials, and in my view that has been of use. The
other thing I would say in respect of finance is that
one of the thingswhich occurredwith thesplittingup
of ourMinistry of Justicewas thatyousuddenlyhad,
for the first time, diVerent votes. Instead of having
onevotejusticewithdiVerentoutputclasses,youhad
vote justice, vote courts and vote corrections. That
distinction has been preserved in the reintegration of
courts and justice functions, because you still have
diVerentMinisters.WestillhaveaMinisterofJustice
and a Minister for Courts separately. While one can
talk about ring fences, the question is always how
high is the fence and how easy is it to get over. In any
system of public appropriations, there are fences at
diVerent heights. In the New Zealand system, if you
have a separate vote that is a significantly more
eVective fence than if you have a separate output
class within the vote. I would suggest that might be
worth thinking about, therefore.
Q515 Lord Smith of Clifton: May I ask for
elucidation, My Lord Chairman? When you say
“Ministers”, are these of Cabinet rank—
Dr Palmer: Yes.
Q516 Lord Smith of Clifton: . . . or are they junior
Ministers? It would relate to what Professor Hazell
saidaboutthedegreeofministerialdevolutionwithin
a large, giant department.
Dr Palmer: Perhaps I should say that they are of
Cabinetrank,buttheMinistersforCourtsdotendto
be more junior. From the judiciary’s point of view,
therefore, there is a trade-oV here between having
access to a more senior Minister, who may be more
distracted and less focused, and access to a more
junior Minister who is more focused. It is not
necessarily clear to me which of those is preferable
from the judiciary’s point of view.
Q517 Lord Windlesham: Having been here, having
studied and having brought yourself up to date, I
imagine you are already very familiar with the
essentials of the British system. As you can see, there
have been some fundamental changes which either
have taken place or are in the process of taking place
in our judicial system, in the courts, and in the
relationship between the Ministers and the courts. If
youhadtocarryawayoneimage,onepersonallesson
toremindyourselfabout,tothinkabout ontheplane
going back, what would it be? The good and the
bad—in the sense of encouraging and the opposite?
Dr Palmer: This is my view of what is happening
here?
103
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Dr Matthew Palmer
Q518 LordWindlesham:Entirelyyourview,yes,and
to what extent it might help to illuminate your own
approach to similar work at a senior level in New
Zealand.
Dr Palmer: There is a similar issue occurring in New
Zealand in the last few years and I see significant
parallels between them. We established a new
Supreme Court two or three years ago. In both
processes, both jurisdictions, what I see is new
institutions jockeying for position and taking a little
bitoftimetosettledown astowhattheirrelationship
is likely to be on an ongoing basis. To some extent, I
suspect that is inherent in the nature of new
institutions being created that have a relationship
with other institutions. We might perhaps consider
that it would be possible for it to be a lot worse—and
I am sure that it could be—certainly here and in New
Zealand. I suppose I would personally tend to have
faith that, in the slightly longer term, once these
institutional arrangements have settled down, the
relationships will be on a relatively more even keel
in future.
Q519 Lord Rowlands: This is a completely separate
question. Has New Zealand any experience of the
courts giving advisory declarations on the law?
Dr Palmer: Some limited experience. Not as much as
thereisinCanada,wheretheyhavequiteasignificant
degree of experience in that regard. There will be
occasions when the Government in particular will
state a case to a court for an answer to several
questions. The most recent instance of that, dating
back to 2003, yielded an answer by the court that the
Government was particularly unpleased with. So
whether or not they will do it again in a hurry, I am
not sure!
Q520 Lord
Rowlands:
And
the
Canadian
experience?
Dr Palmer: The Canadian experience, particularly in
terms of constitutional questions, is much more
extensive; in references being given to the Supreme
Court of Canada, for example, to determine or
declare what the constitutional conventions might be
with respect to secession by Quebec, or similar sorts
of things.
Q521 Lord Rowlands: The territorial constitutional
side?
Dr Palmer: Yes.
Q522 Lord Goodlad: The New Zealand Cabinet
ManualcontainsguidancetoMinistersontheproper
limits of comments on judicial decisions. We have
heard some conflicting evidence during this inquiry
onrevising thiscountry’sMinisterial Codetoinclude
similar guidance. Do you think that would be
desirable?
Dr Palmer: From a New Zealand point of view, I
think it is very desirable that those rules are in the
Cabinet Manual, but it should not be thought that
the existence of the rules guarantee that the
behaviour
follows.
The
Cabinet
Manual
is
interpreted by the Prime Minister rather than any
courtoranyotherbody,soitisessentiallyinterpreted
politically; and if the political will is not there at the
highestlevelto supportthejudiciary,thenthoserules
would not be followed.
Q523 Lord Goodlad: What has been the experience
of their being followed or not followed?
Dr Palmer: I would say that the experience has been
mixed. There have been increasing instances of some
negative comment by Ministers about courts and
court decisions, which are clearly in breach of the
manual; but I would suggest that it is better to have
the statements there than not have them at all.
Q524 Baroness O’Cathain: Do you know about our
communications
and
the
recent
judicial
communications set-up that we have here?
Dr Palmer: I have heard something of it.
Q525 Baroness O’Cathain: Which is supposed to
take the steam out of oV-the-cuV comments by
Ministers on judges, about sentences, et cetera. So
you do not really know what it is all about. I was
wonderingwhetheryouhadasimilarsortofthing,to
try to take the heat out of situations which might
arise, if there is a ministerial comment which, despite
the fact that you have your Cabinet Manual, could
cause a bit of a ruckus with the judges.
Dr Palmer: No, we really do not have a system that
polices that, or that tries to limit it significantly.
Q526 Baroness O’Cathain: Do you have a voracious
media which hangs on every word that the judges say
aboutsentencing, andtakecommentsoutofcontext?
Dr Palmer: They can do, yes.
Q527 Baroness O’Cathain: How do you deal with
that?
Dr Palmer: It is dealt with mainly as a matter of self-
restraint between the branches of government.
Usually it is for the Attorney General, who is a
member of the Cabinet and possibly our equivalent
to your Lord Chancellor—I am not sure—to defend
the judiciary. The Attorney will do that to a greater
or
lesser
extent,
depending
on
the
political
circumstances of the time.If criticism gets toosevere,
then the Chief Justice herself may issue a statement;
however, thatwould befairlyunusual. Isuppose that
at the moment the situation is simply reliant on
goodwill.
104
executive/judiciary relations: evidence
9 May 2007
Dr Matthew Palmer
Chairman: With that, I think we have to stop, but I
am most grateful to you. If you can give us any
further evidence on how the capital-D dialogue
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited
7/2007
365398
19585
works between the branches, that would be of very
great interest to the Committee. Thank you very much indeed for coming.