Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400
- 407)
TUESDAY 9 DECEMBER 2003
HH MICHAEL BRODRICK,
HH SHAUN LYONS,
DJ JEREMY COCHRANE
AND DJ MICHAEL
WALKER
Q400 Mr Soley: You would be strongly
against that, I understand?
His Honour Judge Lyons: Yes. We
largely see him as the man who mines the money from the Treasury.
We do not suppose any judicial figure could ever attempt to be
a success at that, but, that said, he really cannot fulfil any
of the roles of the head of judiciary.
His Honour Judge Brodrick: As
a loose analogy, you are unwinding three separate strands and
they actually interlink. What somebody needs to do is to give
a complete list of the powers, duties, responsibilities, decisions,
et cetera, et cetera, which currently are held by the office of
Lord Chancellor and then you have got to mark them, "House
of Lords", "political", "judicial". The
House of Lords can sort out the problems that are created for
it, the political can devolve to the Secretary of State, the judicial
cannot and the judicial have got to go elsewhere, a part to the
Judicial Appointments Commission, and the rest, in the main, to
the Lord Chief Justice, and I entirely agree that he must become,
by statute, head of the judiciary.
Q401 Chairman: Where does that leave
the responsibility for the efficient operation of the court system,
for which Parliament regards a minister as accountable, as distinct
from the carrying out of judicial functions by judges?
His Honour Judge Brodrick: Well,
I think that is a very difficult issue which will have to be resolved
in discussion between the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief
Justice. I entirely accept that if Parliament is voting money
for courts and judges, Parliament is entitled to have an account
of how that money is spent. Precisely who gives it, I think, is
a matter for discussion and perhaps way above our level.
Q402 Mr Soley: Is your fear that if the
Lord Chief Justice takes on this judicial role of the Lord Chancellor,
like in the political interface, the system will become more political,
that there will be more political clout, if you like, between
the judiciary and ministers? Is that what your fear is?
His Honour Judge Brodrick: I think
there is a risk of that. At the moment with the Lord Chief Justice
as a member of the House of Lords, if he has fears about an infringement
of judicial independence, he can either speak in or, if necessary,
initiate a debate in the House of Lords and the matter can be
properly ventilated where it should be in one of the Houses of
Parliament. If you separate the system completely, then it may
be that these matters have to be argued and discussed in the press
and I really do not think that that is the best way of doing it.
I think one has got to find some mechanism which allows matters
to be ventilated in one or other House of Parliament.
His Honour Judge Lyons: I think
one of your earlier witnesses made the difference between separation
between the judiciary and the Executive and separation between
the judiciary and the Legislature. I do not mean your earlier
witnesses today, but in one of your earlier sessions. I think
there are very strong resonances in what Judge Brodrick has just
said.
Q403 Keith Vaz: Can you give me some
statistics? There is the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges,
which I presume is the number of people in the executive committee.
How many of those members are women and how many are black or
Asian?
His Honour Judge Lyons: In our
committee?
Q404 Keith Vaz: The governing body, your
committee.
His Honour Judge Lyons: The committee
is 22 strong. There are two women. The next chairman is starting
on 1st January.
His Honour Judge Brodrick: Three.
Q405 Keith Vaz: So three out of 22. How
many are black or Asian?
His Honour Judge Lyons: None.
Q406 Keith Vaz: What about the Association
of District Judges? You have got a governing body, an executive
committee.
District Judge Walker: There is
one woman and no ethnic minority members.
Q407 Keith Vaz: Do you think you are
in a position to put forward views on diversity bearing in mind
that you are not a particularly diverse organisation?
District Judge Cochrane: Recently
the South-Eastern Circuit, north, needed a new member as someone
had got another job and I encouraged two females to make applications,
to put themselves forward. Both decided that they did not wish
to do so because they felt it would require too much input. That
was their privilege, but I pressed them, although it was not my
circuit, because I wanted to increase the number of women and
in the event they did not put themselves forward. Only one person
did, a male. As regards people from the ethnic minorities, I think
it is fair to say that only in recent years have people from the
Asian and black communities come into the job. There is an increasing
number and the number will continue to increase as society evolves.
As that happens, we are hopeful that people will put themselves
forward. So far as the Association has its committee of eight,
they are ex officio, we do involve and have involved people
from ethnic minorities in sub-groups, not because they are from
ethnic minorities, but when we are dealing with, for example,
company insolvency, a colleague of ours, who happens to be of
an ethnic origin, really knows all there is to know about company
insolvency, so we turn to him because he knows what he is doing.
We also turn to women if they know what they are doing and men
if they know what they are doing. Let me say this: that we do
almost everything by Nolan principles. We have our own journal
and we advertise.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed.
| 
