Examination of Witnesses (Questions 333
- 339)
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH 2007
MR PAUL DACRE
Q333 Chairman:
Good morning. Welcome, Mr Dacre. I know you are a busy man. It
is good of you to come and share your thoughts with us. We appreciate
it. This evidence session is going to be televised for the BBC,
so I wonder if you would be good enough for the cameras to identify
yourself.
Mr Dacre: My name is Paul Dacre. I am editor
of the Daily Mail and Editor in Chief of Associated Newspapers.
Q334 Chairman:
Thank you. Is there anything you would like to say? You know the
general area of interests and we have indicated some of the questions.
Mr Dacre: That is very nice of you but I am
just happy to answer your questions.
Q335 Chairman:
Let me plunge in. One of the questions on the mind of this Committee—and
we have just been having some evidence on this before you joined
us—is how the British public see the judges, particularly
now, in this era of constitutional innovation, where there is
greater separation between the judiciary and the executive in
the shape of the Government. The question that is preoccupying
us is how the public see the judges. I just wonder, from your
lofty editorial perch, both at Associated Newspapers and at the
Daily Mail, about your own opinion of the way the public
see the judiciary.
Mr Dacre: Firstly, I think the public still
have huge faith in the independence and integrity and uncorruptibility
of the British judiciary. I do not think that can be said loud
enough. Having said that, if I am being honest I suspect that
many of our readers and many members of the public are slightly
confused about the judges these days. They see, with increasing
frequency, decisions made by elected governments being overturned
by the judiciary; they see increasingly controversial decisions
being made by judges, perhaps political judgments being made by
judges, which fly in the face of what they perceive as national
interests. They see an increasingly lenient judiciary, handing
down lesser and lesser sentences for what many regard as serious
crimes. I think they are confused. They still have great faith
in the judiciary but there are worries that it is not reflecting
their values and their instincts.
Q336 Chairman:
It is interesting that in that answer you, in a sense, ran together
the political and judicial dimension. One of the things that is
exercising the Committee is, given what a strongly partisan adversarial
political culture we have in this country, is it possible that
the reporting of judicial decisions is assimilated into what I
will call, in shorthand, "political reporting", that
it becomes part of a political narrative of a struggle of ideas,
a struggle for power, rather than being seen for what it is: an
area circumscribed by law itself? I think there may be a danger
that it is seen as part of the glamorous and hard-pitched political
struggle in the widest sense rather than having a steer of its
own.
Mr Dacre: Forgive me, my Lord Chairman, are
you talking about the reporting?
Q337 Chairman:
I am talking about the reporting and, therefore, ultimately the
perception.
Mr Dacre: Newspapers are not immune to battles
between politicians and judges, and views expressed by politicians
and controversial decisions made by judges. I would like to think
that our newspapers report factually and comment freely. But there
is no doubt about it, the relationship between the executive and
the judiciary has become a story and it is possibly creating a
gladiatorial sense about some of the reporting that might be causing
anxieties on the judicial side.
Q338 Lord Windlesham:
Is that more so than in the past?
Mr Dacre: I would certainly think so, yes. I
certainly think so.
Q339 Lord Windlesham:
Causes?
Mr Dacre: The elephant in the room is the Human
Rights Act, which, it is no secret, we believe has placed the
judges in an impossible position, whereby it is leading to them
making political judgments which is setting them against the politicians.
| 
