*/
In a country where “law is a bedrock of society” the new Supreme Court is a “pillar of the constitution”, the former senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill told a well attended meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Legal and Constitutional Aff airs on 26
October. His comments were made in response to a suggestion—for which he had no sympathy— that the justices could save the salary of a Chief Executive by sharing the administrative and human resources duties amongst themselves. During the meeting he also stated his opposition to televising court proceedings—the tendency would be to broadcast things out of context and “I don’t think [televising has] much enhanced the standing of Parliament”. Although the role of the President of the Supreme Court will evolve he did not foresee a change in the way the justices dealt with the law (judicial “activism” or the lack of it was cyclical and a function of personalities) but there will be a change in perception which will be for the better.
He endorsed the selection process for justices brought in by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as being “as near politicsproof as it could be”. Although the Lord Chancellor retains the power to reject a candidate, it was “fanciful” that the selection panel would put up someone who is unfi t. The questions followed a speech in which he outlined the history of the highest court in the land since the Tudors accepted that final judicial decisions should be in the House of Lords sitting in an appellate capacity. Th at function narrowly escaped abolition in 1868 only due to a change in the governing party. It more recent years it evolved into the House of Lords we knew—twelve apolitical judges who played very little part in the legislature. Nevertheless, institutions “should look like what they are”. The Palace of Westminster is a parliament, not a court. One benefi t of the new premises is that the allocation of their rooms is no longer within the sole gift of the Party whips.
He endorsed the selection process for justices brought in by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as being “as near politicsproof as it could be”. Although the Lord Chancellor retains the power to reject a candidate, it was “fanciful” that the selection panel would put up someone who is unfi t. The questions followed a speech in which he outlined the history of the highest court in the land since the Tudors accepted that final judicial decisions should be in the House of Lords sitting in an appellate capacity. Th at function narrowly escaped abolition in 1868 only due to a change in the governing party. It more recent years it evolved into the House of Lords we knew—twelve apolitical judges who played very little part in the legislature. Nevertheless, institutions “should look like what they are”. The Palace of Westminster is a parliament, not a court. One benefi t of the new premises is that the allocation of their rooms is no longer within the sole gift of the Party whips.
In a country where “law is a bedrock of society” the new Supreme Court is a “pillar of the constitution”, the former senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill told a well attended meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Legal and Constitutional Aff airs on 26
October. His comments were made in response to a suggestion—for which he had no sympathy— that the justices could save the salary of a Chief Executive by sharing the administrative and human resources duties amongst themselves. During the meeting he also stated his opposition to televising court proceedings—the tendency would be to broadcast things out of context and “I don’t think [televising has] much enhanced the standing of Parliament”. Although the role of the President of the Supreme Court will evolve he did not foresee a change in the way the justices dealt with the law (judicial “activism” or the lack of it was cyclical and a function of personalities) but there will be a change in perception which will be for the better.
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps
The appointments of 96 new King’s Counsel (also known as silk) are announced today
