Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 121)
WEDNESDAY 6 DECEMBER 2006
MS CLARE DYER, MS FRANCES GIBB AND MR JOSHUA ROZENBERG
Q120 Lord Rowlands:
That would have been a standard reply in any age. Do you not think
that the change in environment and the way in which the judiciary
are playing their new role in human rights legislation and so
forth does raise the issue of accountability?
Ms Dyer: I do not think it makes it any different.
I suppose they could be asked questions but they would be bound
to give you fairly anodyne answers because if they strayed into
areas where they gave their opinions on issues then they would
be in danger of being taken off cases because of apparent bias,
as happened to Lord Steyn in the Belmarsh case because he had
previously expressed a view on an issue in the case.
Ms Gibb: The only area I can see now where they
are going to be increasingly accountable—I do not think
it is incompatible with independence—is over the way they
are appointed, because of the setting up of the new Judicial Appointments
Commission which obviously requires annual reports to Parliament
and so on, and the whole method is transparent and open to public
scrutiny. The whole thrust towards a more diverse judiciary is
another factor which should improve public confidence and respect,
to come back to that earlier question. I think it is not incompatible
with being independent; it reinforces it in some ways.
Mr Rozenberg: I can see dangers. Nobody wants
to go down the road to the extent that you have a candidate for
appointment as, perhaps, Lord Chief Justice being questioned by
this Committee as to his views and his suitability for appointment
as you would see in the United States. On the other hand, I do
not think there is any harm in the public knowing a little bit
more about the views of the Lord Chief Justice of the day once
he or she has been appointed given that he has this important
role as head of the judiciary, a role which we do not really understand.
We have no idea how he is exercising that role. I know he has
given evidence to this Committee but we do not know to what extent
he is influenced by his officials, to what extent he works with
his officials, how much of his time he spends on administration,
what he sees his role as head of the judiciary as. I think these
are questions that if he does not want to answer from us, the
press, he should certainly answer from a committee such as yours
and we should know a little bit more about him personally if we
think that his personal views and his philosophy on life are going
to affect the way in which he carries out his public responsibilities.
Q121 Lord Rowlands:
You actually said earlier on that you thought they were liberal
judges or the judges were more left wing; you characterised it
yourselves at the beginning. That is picked up because of individual
decisions, but in that sense judges are entering the political
arena in many respects. By even limiting options government has
they do limit and they do therefore enter political debate through
judgments, therefore is it not reasonable that they can be criticised?
Or is not reasonable that we should make them more accountable?
Mr Rozenberg: They would say they are not acting
politically and they would say they cannot answer back. It is
not as clear cut as those answers would suggest because, in the
broader sense, what they are doing has a political impact and
to some extent they can answer back. However, they are right to
say that they are not politicians and should not be treated as
politicians. Whenever they come into conflict with politicians—as
the late Lord Taylor did with Michael Howard when he was Home
Secretary in the years up to 1997—the judges inevitably
come off second best because they do not have the political skills
to engage with experienced politicians.
Chairman: I am afraid we are going
to have to stop in a moment, but if there is anything that you
have not said that you would like to say—anything burning
but also brief—we would be extremely interested to hear
it. You have covered a lot of ground; maybe we have covered everything.
In that case, could I say on behalf of the Committee how grateful
we are. It has been a very valuable session; thank you for being
so candid and helpful.
| 
