Memorandum by the Rt Hon the Lord Brightman
SUMMARY
1. I was appointed a Law Lord in 1982. I
retired as a Law Lord in 1986 . Thereafter I devoted myself entirely
to the non-judicial work of the House. In my submission it would
be a great mistake to hive off the judicial work from the pre
cints of the Palace of Westminster. It is not necessary to do
this in order to prevent the Law Lords becoming legislators. There
would be no benefit to litigants.
2. Therefore I think that "Part 2,
the Supreme Court" should be amended accordingly.
EVIDENCE
3. My evidence is directed solely against
housing a Supreme Court outside the Palace of Westminster.
4. I start by getting rid of one misunderstanding.
This is based on the proposition, which for present purposes I
accept, that if Law Lords in office take part in the legislative
work of the House they may be compromised if at some later date
they have to deal with the same matter judicially.
5. Therefore it is said that it is necessary
to remove the appellate jurisdiction and site it elsewhere, in
order to prevent Law Lords being legislators.
6. This argument is a fallacy. There is
already a convention that Law Lords do not speak or vote on matters
where there is a strong party political controversy, All that
is needed is a convention that Law Lords in office, or w ho are
authorised to sit judicially do not speak or vote at all. That
is a total answer to the problem.
7. It may however be asked, how is such
a convention to be established? That is no problem, because this
House re-gulates, its own proceedings. I will give an example.
Before 1844 lay peers, as well as Law Lords (who were very few
in number) were in theory entitled to vote and sometimes did vote
on judicial appeals. In June 1884 the then Lord Privy Seal advised
the House that this practice should cease. His advice was accepted
and the covention established.
8. But it may be asked, what about a Law
Lord taking his or her seat in the House and listening to the
debate on a Bill or an amendment? Will that compromise a Law Lord?
Surely it will not, anymore than it matters if a Law Lord listens
on the radio to Today in Parliament. If there is a convention
that Law Lords in office do not speak or vote on Bills, how can
it possibly be said that they enjoy the dual role of Judge and
Legislator.
CONCLUSION
9. I finally consider whether there are
any other reasons for removing the Appellate Jurisdiction or a
new Supreme Court from the Palace of Westminster. It will
not benefit appellants or respondents in any way. Appeals will
not be heard more cheaply or more quickly. I can see no benefit
to Parliament the general public.
10. The move to send the Law Lords away
from the House of Lords is, I believe, built on a total misunderstanding
of how the system works. Parliament has it in its hands to avoid
the waste of millions of pounds. How much better could those millions
be used elsewhere.
15 April 2004
| 
