| Newsflash | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Court on Camera |
 |
 |
| Written by site manager |
| Tuesday, 13 October 2009 11:53 |
|
I will never forget my first appearance as a young barrister, arguing an appeal case in the House of Lords. Five of the six elderly men I was addressing listened to my submissions with a stony face that Buster Keaton could not have matched. But one nodded occasionally and even smiled at me. I drew encouragement from his reaction and focused my speech on him, hoping he would persuade his noble and learned colleagues to grant my client’s appeal. When I finished speaking, the Law Lords rose to go and consider their Judgement. As this was happening, the friendly one stood up and said in a loud cockney voice, “Court Rise”. He was not one of the Law Lords. He was the Usher! We learn by experience.
This month the new Supreme Court took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords, a role which had previously been exercised by my Law Lord colleagues in parliament. Is this progress or prejudice, against a system which some say had been working perfectly well for centuries?
You might ask yourself: when did the government make this decision, affecting the UK’s most powerful court? Why can I not remember the debate about it? Do not worry, you have not lost your memory. There was hardly any discussion about it. So why the change?
The main argument for reform was to separate the House of Lords’ role as a legislator from its judicial role. It is said that former Prime Minister Tony Blair was concerned that our unified system did not conform to the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Some critics believe that a judge who exercises both political and legal power cannot truly be seen as impartial when dispensing justice.
We were one of the few democracies that did not have this separation of powers, between law and politics. The United States’ Judicial System has that divide. It appears to have created more transparency.. The judges of the American Supreme Court have a high profile. When a new Supreme Court judge is appointed in America, the process is covered extensively in the media. By contrast, our top judges have very little public profile.
The new UK Supreme Court hearings are far more accessible to the public and are available for television broadcast. However, I suspect it will never rival Strictly Come Dancing or The X Factor in viewer ratings. The reality is that the Law Lords have been transported to a building that is about 5 minutes walk away from the House of Lords, to what used to be Middlesex Crown Court. The Government say the cost of the whole project was 59 million pounds. The Opposition claims it was more like 100 million pounds. Who ever is correct, it is still a lot of money. But the new Court has now started and we are where we are. Only time will tell whether it was a sensible change or a supreme waste of money.
John Taylor,
Lord Taylor of Warwick
12 October 2009 |
Comments (0)