The President of the Family Division of the High Court (ie the top family judge in England & Wales) is retiring in 3 days’ time and his successor has not been announced. Another judicial vacancy, in the Supreme Court, has just been filled this week after a search process lasting over four months. Why is it taking so long? After all, the Judicial Appointments Commission was established in 2006 to enshrine transparency and judicial independence, it was said, and in order not to place the choice of judges entirely in the hands of a government minister, the Lord Chancellor. At the same time the Law Lords were moved into a new Supreme Court building, in keeping with the doctrine of the separation of powers, and the Lord Chancellorship was combined with the post of Secretary of State for Justice. The Lord Chancellor ceased to be Speaker of the House of Lords and head of the judiciary. In other words, all this was done in order to remove the appointment and functioning of judges from the political process. I do not believe that this has succeeded, for the last word on the choice of the senior judges now rests in the hands of the Secretary of State for Justice, an MP, who can disagree with the choice of the Judicial Appointments Commission (I am simplifying the process set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005). I asked a question about this last week, for the incoming President of the Family Division will need a handover period with the outgoing President, and the delay will make this impossible. It can only be accounted for by some disagreement between the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Appointments Commission: hence I feel that the appointment of judges is more political than ever before. In reply the Minister could only say that it was all confidential and he had no comment to make.
As a strange coincidence, I was only wondering last week what happened to the appointment of the 12th Justice of the Supreme Court. I’ve seen absolutely nothing about Sir John Dyson’s appointment in the media – so much for the public’s interest in the new Supreme Court!
I had wondered if the delay was that no-one could decide how he would be addressed. The website now suggests simply Sir John Dyson. It seems a little unfair when the others are all Lord or Lady. And presumably he’s no longer even a Lord Justice?
Has the delay in his appointment meant a backlog of cases, or that the other 11 Justices have been overworked?
This is rather alarming. I was under the impression that the Justice Secretary’s approval was a mere formality designed as a failsafe against insider favouritism within the Judicial Appointments Commission. It was not meant to allow politicians to sculpt the judicial system. The example set by the USA has already shown that the last thing we want is a political Supreme Court.
To be fair, the four month appointment of our latest Lord Justice, Sir John Dyson, apparently took so long due to too much, not too little, transparency. Word got out that the Supreme Court was planning to appoint a barrister, John Sumption QC, rather than a judge to the Court. Apparently the Appeals Court judges – furious that, having taken a ten-fold pay cut to serve as judges, they might be leapfrogged by an barrister whose judging capacity was untested – blocked the appointment.
Still, Chambers politics is one thing, Westminster meddling is totally different…
http://www.governing-principles.com
It seems that things turning political is common occurrence everywhere. That can be a dangerous situation, especially if you are not a political ally of the MP who is doing the final step.
A political Supreme Court is a dangerous thing, that means that people will be judged on the favours that they call in via political party affiliations, rather than the dossier pertaining to their case!
We all know that the only reason GWB became the US President is because of the friends in high places that his father had in the US Supreme Court, then America went downhill and took the rest of the world spiralling downward with it!
It would seem that if the Supreme Court here becomes overtly political, then if someone doesn’t like the outcome of an election, they will just petition the Supreme Court to change the governing party in their direction!
“A political Supreme Court is a dangerous thing”
There has always been an informal division of the Law lords, from my limited knowledge of the subject, but they are so wise that politics would never interfere with day to day business, surely.
“Justice Secretary’s approval was a mere formality designed as a failsafe against insider favouritism within the Judicial Appointments Commission.”
It probably is, but are the Justices of the Supreme Court no longer given the rank “Lord” ?
Going over the changes again and again and again has been my alloted task for some time now. I am glad noble Baroness Deech is doing it instead this time.
“In reply the Minister could only say that it was all confidential and he had no comment to make.”
Would that be similar to
“Straw informed Castle that when he went to examine Scott’s file, he found it was missing. The journalist Barrie Penrose has alleged that Straw subsequently leaked details from the file to the media. Straw remains silent on that matter. ”
Although Mr. Straw was a Barrister from 1971-4 I do not consider him practised enough for his present position. Infact Lord Chancellor should be an apolitical position. We have seen recently that Mr. Straw can be swayed by media/public opinion even though he actually only met with Denise Fergus. MP`s are not practised High Court Judges and their opinions are to my mind not as worthy.
Mr. Straw unfortunately for him sits in my list one under Mandelson, I do not believe him trustworthy but that is my personal opinion. As Home Secretary in 2001 we saw him act in tandum with the now Lord Sugar to release an Amstrad product as part of the Neighbourhood watch scheme.
“2001 Jack Straw and Sir Alan Sugar launch e-m@iler watch, a revolutionary new scheme which allows Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators to communicate with the Police in near virtual time by means of Amstrad e-m@iler communication centres installed within their homes.”
http://www.amstrad.com/about/profile.html
In 2000 Straw released General Pinochet back to Chile on medical grounds. Also in 2000, Straw turned down an asylum request from a man fleeing Saddam Hussein’s regime, stating “we have faith in the integrity of the Iraqi judicial process and that you should have no concerns if you haven’t done anything wrong.
There are many other factors that make me question Mr. Straws position. The fact remains Lord Chancellor is not a position for a political person, it is I believe a legal position and from what Baroness Deech has stated a position that in some ways override the Supreme Court by means of only electing who the Chancellor see`s fit.
I am still uncertain as to the seperation of the Judiciary from the Lords being the correct move, possibly it weakens the House. I am of the mind that tinkering with a perfectly good system as recent Governments have will only result in a botched system that will eventually not function at all.
If we judge the system the Labour party has tried to create it maybe that it will be similar to any of it`s failed IT systems.Good intent,over budget costs, bad/slow implementation resulting in a failed system.
No my Lady, no politician should have a majority say in anyway on the Judiciary. A mechanic can build a car but he isn`t the best driver.
“Judicial Appointments Commission was established in 2006 to enshrine transparency and judicial independence, it was said, and in order not to place the choice of judges entirely in the hands of a government minister, the Lord Chancellor.”
Then whose hands might the choice fall in to and perhaps that is why it is taking so long?
Personally I’d rather the HoLs judicial committee would be the ideal body to ‘confirm’ judges appointments thereby giving some legitimacy (badly lacking at present) and taking it out of the hands of ministers completely.
Scary,asking questions on this in Committee:
Lord Woolf(Crossbench) 29:50/40:34 Case for special appointments.
Lord Norton(Conservative) 39:15/48:33 —/Retired SCJ appointments.
House of Lords Committee – Work of Lords Appointments Commission
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8557000/8557574.stm
I’m less bothered by a minister vetoing a committee selection than I am by a minister forcing his choice through despite the objections of a committee (think Children’s Commissioner here).
There is a fine line to tread between an unaccountable committee appointing people to important posts and an overtly political appointment by a government minister. Checks and balances are required, and at the moment the checks are bouncing and the balances aren’t.
Let’s talk about the present elections, all of us waited for this hour, and here it has come. Than in England elections differ from all the others, I have in view of European. We will talk about a genuine democracy developing an evolutionary way, without shocks and violence. The monarch – to all a head. The English Queen the presence of the existence gives sensation of a link of times. The people always understood and felt best politicians and are watered technologists. The instinct and a knowledge of life always prompted that while there is a person not interested to plunder the people when there is a responsible person to whom it is possible will address with any question which will look from a position of justice of common sense and expediency, the people have defender and the representative of the people. The monarchy combines some institutes secular in the name of the emperor, where the monarch to all a head, spiritual in the name of church. The opinion of church was on the party of social protection of the population, the economy of the monarchic state always should be socially focused. Mechanisms of distribution of incomes of economic activities were equitable in the monarchic state to interests of all people, and any or its part. The social principle of construction of economy has been constructed on principles council “Zemstvoes”, was clear and comprehensible. The state always on principles of monarchic idea was socially steady, and the economy always was effective. The historical sequence shows that the most effective and the providing best result at smaller expenses of resources is market capitalist economy based on principles of own private interests of individualism with elements of social justice, improvement of quality of a standard of living, its subject majesty.
Continuation follows ++.
“I feel that the appointment of judges is more political than ever before”
Don’t they elect some of the lower forms of Judge in the USA?
Fast food is getting more like US fare every day so perhaps Judging is too!
heh, I was skeptical of the Supreme Court to begin with…