*/
In a country where “law is a bedrock of society” the new Supreme Court is a “pillar of the constitution”, the former senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill told a well attended meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Legal and Constitutional Aff airs on 26
October. His comments were made in response to a suggestion—for which he had no sympathy— that the justices could save the salary of a Chief Executive by sharing the administrative and human resources duties amongst themselves. During the meeting he also stated his opposition to televising court proceedings—the tendency would be to broadcast things out of context and “I don’t think [televising has] much enhanced the standing of Parliament”. Although the role of the President of the Supreme Court will evolve he did not foresee a change in the way the justices dealt with the law (judicial “activism” or the lack of it was cyclical and a function of personalities) but there will be a change in perception which will be for the better.
He endorsed the selection process for justices brought in by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as being “as near politicsproof as it could be”. Although the Lord Chancellor retains the power to reject a candidate, it was “fanciful” that the selection panel would put up someone who is unfi t. The questions followed a speech in which he outlined the history of the highest court in the land since the Tudors accepted that final judicial decisions should be in the House of Lords sitting in an appellate capacity. Th at function narrowly escaped abolition in 1868 only due to a change in the governing party. It more recent years it evolved into the House of Lords we knew—twelve apolitical judges who played very little part in the legislature. Nevertheless, institutions “should look like what they are”. The Palace of Westminster is a parliament, not a court. One benefi t of the new premises is that the allocation of their rooms is no longer within the sole gift of the Party whips.
He endorsed the selection process for justices brought in by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as being “as near politicsproof as it could be”. Although the Lord Chancellor retains the power to reject a candidate, it was “fanciful” that the selection panel would put up someone who is unfi t. The questions followed a speech in which he outlined the history of the highest court in the land since the Tudors accepted that final judicial decisions should be in the House of Lords sitting in an appellate capacity. Th at function narrowly escaped abolition in 1868 only due to a change in the governing party. It more recent years it evolved into the House of Lords we knew—twelve apolitical judges who played very little part in the legislature. Nevertheless, institutions “should look like what they are”. The Palace of Westminster is a parliament, not a court. One benefi t of the new premises is that the allocation of their rooms is no longer within the sole gift of the Party whips.
In a country where “law is a bedrock of society” the new Supreme Court is a “pillar of the constitution”, the former senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill told a well attended meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Legal and Constitutional Aff airs on 26
October. His comments were made in response to a suggestion—for which he had no sympathy— that the justices could save the salary of a Chief Executive by sharing the administrative and human resources duties amongst themselves. During the meeting he also stated his opposition to televising court proceedings—the tendency would be to broadcast things out of context and “I don’t think [televising has] much enhanced the standing of Parliament”. Although the role of the President of the Supreme Court will evolve he did not foresee a change in the way the justices dealt with the law (judicial “activism” or the lack of it was cyclical and a function of personalities) but there will be a change in perception which will be for the better.
As we look ahead to Justice Week 2022, the sustainability of the Criminal Bar remains a critical issue for the government to address
Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
Fear of the collection and test process is a common factor among clients, especially among vulnerable adults in complex family law cases. Cansford Laboratories shares some tips to help the testing process run as smoothly as possible
Casey Randall explains how complex relationship DNA tests can best be used – and interpreted – by counsel
Casey Randall, Head of DNA at AlphaBiolabs, explores what barristers need to know about DNA testing for immigration, including when a client might wish to submit DNA evidence, and which relationship tests are best for immigration applications
Julian Morgan reminds barristers of the top five areas to consider before 5 April
Barristers are particularly at risk of burnout because of the nature of our work and our approach to it but it doesnt have to be this way. Jade Bucklow explores how culture, work and lifestyle changes can rejuvinate our mental health...
The case ofR v Brecanihas complicated matters for defence lawyers. Emma Fielding talks to gang culture expert, Dr Simon Harding about County Lines, exploitation and modern slavery
If the Bar cannot define and prohibit bullying behaviour, what chance do we have of persuading the Judiciary to do so? Darren Howe QC and Professor Jo Delahunty QC's call to action on codification plus suggested strategies for dealing with bullying from the Bar and Bench
The Schools Consent Project (SCP) is educating tens of thousands of teenagers about the law around consent to challenge and change what is now endemic behaviour. Here, its founder, barrister Kate Parker talks to Chris Henley QC about SCPs work and its association with Jodie Comers West End playPrima Facie, in which she plays a criminal barrister who is sexually assaulted
Professionally embarrassed? The circumstances in which criminal barristers may return instructions to appear at trial have become clearer following the Court of Appeal judgment inR v Daniels By Abigail Bright
