Examination of Witness (Questions 40-59)
HIS HONOUR
JUDGE JEFF
BLACKETT
29 NOVEMBER 2005
Q40 Ms Keeley: We have some more
questions on the issue of diversity which you have also touched
on, the difference aspects of that. The Armed Forces Bill is expected
to include provision for the judge advocate general to become
the single appointing authority for judge advocates. I think it
begs the question, given the discussion you have already had about
diversity, about how you are going to progress that really, and
will there be a role for the Judicial Appointments Commission
once that is established, that widening of diversity in that appointment
system? Could they be helped with that given the singular similar
nature of the people you have already got?
Judge Blackett: I think there
has been a misunderstanding of what my future role is going to
be. It is not going to be for me to appoint judge advocates in
the sense of recruiting them. My role is to appoint them (ie specify,
I think is the word which is going to be used in the Bill) to
individual trials, but the appointment of judge advocates is going
to be undertaken by the DCA in exactly the same way as the appointment
of any other judicial post. An assistant judge advocate is appointed
by the Lord Chancellor having been through the same judicial recruiting
process; so clearly the diversity issues are the same as they
would be in any other judicial appointment.
Q41 Ms Keeley: One further question
on diversity and also the level of experience. If the Armed Forces
Bill increases the minimum qualification for appointment as a
judge advocate to seven years that would seem to be going in the
opposite way to the way that the Department for Constitutional
Affairs is going trying to widen diversity. I do not know if it
is appropriate for you to comment on that?
Judge Blackett: Yes, again, I
think there has been some misunderstanding because the Armed Forces
Bill is not increasing the current requirement for a seven-year
call, and that is in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. My
view is that the judge advocate should have the same qualification
as a recorder in the Crown Court. At the moment a recorder in
the Crown Court has to have 10 years call, and therefore my view
is a judge advocate, who is in my view the equivalent to a recorder,
should have the same length of call. However, if the DCA policy
is to reduce the qualification period in an attempt to increase
the pool, increase diversity, then clearly that would be something
that we should do as well. I am not fussed really about how many
years it is; I am simply fussed that it is the same.
Q42 Chairman: I do not think you
have given us a very clear picture of what role, if any, the Judicial
Appointments Commission is going to have in all of this. Is it
the case that whatever level of appointment is at any given stage
transferred to the Judicial Appointments Commission from the Lord
Chancellor the equivalent role in the Court Martial and judge
advocate structure will go the same way or not?
Judge Blackett: Yes.
Q43 Chairman: It is?
Judge Blackett: That is my understanding.
I will not be responsible for recruiting though. Judge advocates
will be recruited, in the same way as any other judge, by the
DCA, by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
Q44 Chairman: When you said the Department
for Constitutional Affairs, it was them or the Judicial Appointments
Commission?
Judge Blackett: Yes, I think I
was talking about now rather than the future.
Q45 Jeremy Wright: Before we leave
the question of recruitment, can I just ask you to clarify. Presumably
when we look at recruitment and therefore diversity of applicants
for the job of judge advocate, it would be right for us to take
into account the particular demands of the job of judge advocate
which do not apply to a recorder or a circuit judge, in the sense
that it is right, I assume, that you are liable to be moved around
the country and, indeed, abroad to sit in other foreign jurisdictions?
Judge Blackett: Yes.
Q46 Jeremy Wright: That presumably
is a factor that you would argue is relevant when you look at
the people available for selection who put themselves forward?
Judge Blackett: Thank you for
raising that point, because one of the differences, clearly, is
that a judge advocates job is peripatetic, and judge advocates
spend a lot of time living out of suitcases and hotels because
they travel far and wide to sit in courts martial. Clearly anybody
appointed to judge advocate would have to be able to undertake
the rigours of that sort of lifestyle.
Q47 Mr Tyrie: If you can make do
with a suitcase in a hotel room, do you think it is time that
High Court judges also made an effort to do the same?
Judge Blackett: I am not sure
I should answer that question.
Q48 Chairman: It is interesting,
because I have a slightly different question, which is: do you
in fact stay in hotels if you are in Germany or Cyprus, or do
you stay in messes?
Judge Blackett: In hotels. There
is no staying in messes.
Mr Tyrie: Have a go at answering the
question.
Q49 Chairman: Do not feel obliged.
Judge Blackett: I would not really
want to be quoted criticising High Court judges.
Q50 David Howarth: You mentioned
listing. I was just wondering whether the administrative nature
of that includes the allocation of particular cases to particular
judge advocates.
Judge Blackett: No, at the moment
listing is a function of when and where, and that is done by the
Military Court Service who currently are part of the Ministry
of Defence, but the judge advocate, once a trial has been convened,
can of course make directions as to when and where, so technically
he can change it if he wishes to. Not that that happens particularly,
but the appointment of judges to individual trials is my role,
and so the MCS (Military Court Service) would indicate that there
will be trials at a particular place, at a particular time and
then ask me to appoint judge advocates to those trials, which
I will do by signing a warrant.
Q51 David Howarth: Do you follow
any criteria in allocating a case to a particular judge?
Judge Blackett: Yes, I have a
ticketing system in which more senior and more capable judge advocates
have been ticketed to sit in particular types of crime in exactly
the same way as in civilian life, and so one my judge advocates
who is not a recorder would not get to sit in more serious cases
but those recorders are ticketed variously to deal with murder,
manslaughter, serious sex offences.
Q52 David Howarth: What sort of cases
do you yourself take on?
Judge Blackett: Very serious cases.
I have sat three times since I have been Judge Advocate General
in a Court Martial, that is, in a rape case, a manslaughter case
which turned out to be a negligence case and a murder trial.
Q53 David Howarth: Has there been
any particular change in recent years about how a case is allocated
either between the other judges or to you as the JAG?
Judge Blackett: There was no ticketing
system in place until I arrived, and any judge could sit in any
trial, but I felt uncomfortable with a judge advocate who had
not at least become a recorder sitting in very serious crime:
hence I introduced the ticketing system.
Q54 David Howarth: The rules that
you cover, are they written down so they can be passed on to your
successor or are they informal rules that you yourself follow?
Judge Blackett: Each individual
judge advocate received a letter from me which explained my reasons
for the decision; so I suppose the rules are written down in those
letters, but there is no document that I have created, no,
Q55 David Howarth: So it is case
law?
Judge Blackett: Yes.
Q56 David Howarth: Moving to a slightly
different question about what happens, what sort of cases are
coming before Courts Martial? Is there any trend in the number
of cases going through the system or the types of cases going
through the system?
Judge Blackett: Do you want me
to answer that in relation purely to Courts Martial and not in
the summary system? There is a whole raft of stuff underneath
the Courts Martial system.
Q57 David Howarth: If you could start
at the top and comment on other cases.
Judge Blackett: There are getting
towards a thousand trials across the three services in a year,
perhaps slightly less than that. I think the figures might be
on my evidence or certainly in some of the documentation. Certainly
there are going to be 600 plus Army Courts Martial this year.
In very broad handfuls I have suggested elsewhere in evidence
that about 25% of those cases would be indictable in the civilian
system, probably 25% would be either way offences and probably
the rest would be summary offences. In the Army there is a significant
problem with absence, which, of course, is a much more serious
offence in the military context than it is in civilian life; there
are a steady stream of drug offences, dishonesty offences, an
increasing number but with a very low baseline of child abuse
type cases—downloading pornographic material—I am
sorry, I have not got these figures in front of me, but quite
a lot of minor violence up and to including ABH and probably GBH
as well. I am not sure that helps really. It is a bit of a rambling
answer, but we have a whole range of crime.
Q58 Chairman: If there are figures
that are convenient for tabulating you would like to let us have
later, I am sure that would be helpful.
Judge Blackett: I am sure I can
do that.
Q59 David Howarth: To clarify, you
are saying that the number of violence cases rises, or is that
just a major category all round?
Judge Blackett: I review every
single Court Martial in the Army and the Air Force and I see most
of the Navy Courts Martial. I am giving you an answer which is
based on my feeling of what I have seen. I cannot be more certain
than that. There is certainly a steady stream of violence offences,
yes, mainly involving alcohol, so it is drunken violence late
at night?
Chairman: Ms Keeley, do you want to come
in on that?
| 
