Supplementary evidence submitted by Professor
I R Scott
I am sorry I did not manage to say much today
about the second of the four topics I alluded to, ie staffing
(the other three were budget process (on which we spent a lot
of time), accommodation (which we touched on very briefly) and
case processing (of which we said nothing)).
I am worried that I did not convey clearly to
your Committee the general distinction between court officers,
appointed under statute and serving the court, and other court
staff who, under executive-based court administration systems,
are civil servants and find themselves in the position of having
to serve two masters.
I would be pleased if you would explain to your
chairman that one of the reasons why I am disturbed about the
bill making no provision for the appointment of a court officer
(perhaps in the form of a registrar) or officers for the proposed
Supreme Court, is that I believe that one of the most important
court administration functions is records management. If the judges,
through their registrar (or what ever their officer is called),
are not wholly responsible for and in charge of the court's own
records, that is a serious weakness in the court's structure.
I would go so far as to say that the suggestion that a department
of the executive branch should be in charge of the records of
the proposed new Supreme Court (which is what the bill proposes)
is intolerable.
The new court will need a person to play the
role presently played for the House of Lords in its judicial capacity
heretofore played by the Judicial Clerk.
In some judiciary-based court administration
systems, the court registrar is appointed by the court or by the
court in conjunction with the executive and is often given some
security of tenure. In executive-based systems, they may be appointed
by the executive but they are not civil servants.
Professor I R Scott
24 May 2004
| 
