ACCOMMODATION
103. JUSTICE has indicated in its response to the
consultation that it is extremely concerned at the issue of resources,
since the severance of the Supreme Court from the Upper House
would bring considerable additional cost. It states that:
'The court will need appropriate accommodation.
The office of the President will need to be adequately staffed'.
It goes on to emphasise that:
'Suitable accommodation will be costly and will
need to be of a higher quality and extent than currently available'.
104. In a November 2002 paper,[124]
JUSTICE complains that the current Appellate Committee of the
House of Lords occupies a cramped corridor in the Palace of Westminster.
It states that this accommodation is not conducive to public accessibility
and that there is no room for any support staff, as is usually
enjoyed by a court at such a level. It argues that the creation
of a Supreme Court would with its own building would:
'Afford a valuable opportunity to make the court
system more open and transparent to the general public'.
105. This stance has been challenged. In a paper
issued in January 2003[125]
Lord Cooke of Thorndon states that:
'Like most of the offices in the Palace of Westminster,
the rooms of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are not spacious.
But the accommodation, secretarial services, computers and so
forth are not seriously inadequate. In any event grumbling about
the facilities would seem in themselves hardly a sufficient reason
for changing the constitutional functions of the Law Lords'.
106. The new court, as the Consultation paper recognises,
will need new accommodation outside the House of Lords.[126]
The Paper goes no further than this, apart from saying that the
Law Lords will be consulted as to their precise accommodation
needs and that:
"There are a number of options which might
be suitable, and a detailed business case will need to be drawn
up and costed before any firm proposals can be made. This work
will be undertaken in parallel with this consultation exercise".[127]
107. The court might have as its base a building
in central London, or its base might be in a city outside the
capital in order to reflect the United Kingdom nature of the court
or it might even sit regularly in various parts of the Kingdom,
while maintaining a permanent administrative base.
108. The Law Lords' view is that:
"…we are at one in regarding it as
essential that a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, if established,
should be properly accommodated and resourced, and equipped with
the facilities it will need to discharge its public duties to
the best possible effect. The Consultation Paper eschews any detailed
consideration of this fundamental aspect. While some preliminary
thought has, we appreciate, been given to the accommodation which
a Supreme Court will require, no business plan has to our knowledge
been prepared and no estimate of cost made. The building in which
the Court is housed must reflect the importance of the rule of
law in a
modem democracy; and it must afford the judges (plus their librarians,
secretaries, judicial assistants, law reporters, press officer,
IT staff; doorkeepers and security staff) the resources and facilities
they need."[128]
109. The argument of convenience, assuming that the
new court judges remain members of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy council, is that the court should be based in London. It
will be necessary to give it a "proper building with proper
facilities and support services, appropriate to the influence,
both historic and continuing, of the United Kingdom's legal system
in shaping the law and legal systems elsewhere in the world and
our continuing economic and political standing."[129]
110. The choice of site for the new court will be
very difficult. Of the two possible venues mentioned in evidence
to the Committee, Middlesex Guildhall was flatly dismissed by
Lord Bingham, the Senior Law Lord, as being unsuitable because
of its layout which English Heritage would be unlikely to allow
to be altered.[130]
He said that he attached "very considerable importance"
to the building in which the court is to be housed and that he
wanted:
"to preserve the ambiance of our existing
hearings. In other words I would not want a court which sat half
way up the wall with litigants in pews way below, as is the normal
pattern of courts. I would want to preserve the horseshoe table
with counsel very close and on the same level and a lack of formality,
in dress at any rate, on our part, because I think it is an extraordinarily
good medium for discussion".[131]
Lord Hope said of Somerset House that he was concerned
about being drawn back to The Strand, closer to the Inns of Court,
which would tend to strengthen the English link.[132]
111. Delay in finding and making available such
accommodation has raised the possibility that the new Court might
continue to sit in the House of Lords. Given that the principle
argument is that the highest court should be seen to be separate
from the legislature, it seems perverse to implement the change
in a way which leaves many of the same judges sitting in the House
of Lords doing the same job in the same place, possibly with the
same staff seconded by the House of Lords. If more time is needed
to establish the Court as a distinct body, the timing of its introduction
should be adjusted accordingly. Such an important change should
not be rushed.
112. In the nineteenth century the great reform
of the courts system involved the removal of the courts from Westminster
Hall, their historic home for centuries, to the Royal Courts of
Justice in the Strand. The new court of final appeal for the United
Kingdom requires a building which is functionally effective, but
which also reflects its authority and significance.
17 
