*/
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.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
