*/
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.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
Why were some Caribbean nations given such dramatically different constitutional frameworks when they gained independence from the UK? Dr Leonardo Raznovich examines the controversial savings clause
