*/
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.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
