Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Judiciary Speeches
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Judiciary Speeches >> Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales : Speech to the Annual Dinner for Judges [2001] UKSpeech FP6GS (18 July 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/speeches/2001/FP6GS.html
Cite as: [2001] UKSpeech FP6GS
[New search] [Help]
Lord Woolf
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
The Lord Mayor's Annual Dinner for Judges
The Mansion House, City of London
18 July 2001
My Lord Mayor, My Lord High Chancellor, My Lords, Master of the Rolls, Alderman, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, Ladies & Gentleman
On behalf of the judiciary, I thank you for your toast. You have eloquently painted a picture none of us can afford to ignore and I will try to comment on some of the powerful points you have made, but first may I say, how much the judiciary and their partners have enjoyed the superb hospitality of Mansion House.
According to the City Archivist the Judges' Dinner is "the sole surviving relic of a custom which dates back at least to Elizabethan times". A remarkable record of hospitality to which your family's contribution has been unique. The fact that three generations of Howards in succession have become Lord Mayor means that your family has probably provided more judges with dinners than any other family in the land.
Although the dinners are greatly enjoyed by your guests, the judges appreciate that they are not only magnificent social occasions. As with other hospitality provided by the Lord Mayor on behalf of the City, they also serve an important role by providing a platform at which the heads of different branches of government can report to the public. In the case of Judges' Dinner that means reporting on current issues affecting the administration of justice and the rule of law.
When, Lord Mayor, you took your oath of office at the RCJ, I speculated as to whether the next generation of Howard Lord Mayors would not only be a James and a Robert but a Caroline and a Victoria as well.
If they do become Lord Mayor, as I trust they will, it would be splendid if, as in the past, they will be made knights or, in the case of Caroline and Victoria, dames. This is not for their sake - like George Bernard Shaw, they may personally have little time for titles, since, in Shaw's words "they get one into disreputable company". I believe the former custom should be resumed because the conferment of the title is a public recognition of the unique importance of the office of Lord Mayor of London to the nation. An importance which you have, with the support of the Lady Mayoress, already amply demonstrated and confirmed by what you have said this evening.
In the case of the judiciary, we are indeed fortunate that we are still able to attract to the High Court bench candidates of the highest calibre. The conferral of a knighthood upon appointment to the bench makes some contribution to recruitment, this I am sure but how much I am not sure.
Among the recent recruits has been Mr Justice Lawrence Collins, the first, I hope, of many solicitors to be recruited directly to the bench. Lawrence's firm was Herbert Smith here in the City. I suspect he did not accept the appointment to improve his financial situation. Bearing in mind Herbert Smith's reputation I attached some significance to the answer which Lawrence gave when I asked how he was enjoying being a judge. His response will be readily understandable to your judicial guests: he told me he was finding life extremely rewarding but that he has never previously had to work under such pressure. I should emphasise that he was not complaining, and he has still not experienced the rewards of a long vacation! No less a judge than Justice Brandis, when criticised for the length of a judge's holiday is recorded as saying, "I can do my work in 9 months but not in 12!"
Still I would have liked to offer Lawrence some comfort. Instead I fear that I have to admit that the demands we are making of our judges are likely to increase. This is for at least four reasons; first, litigation is becoming ever more complex; second there is the need to cope with increasing numbers of litigants in person; then there are the demands of being litigation managers instead of mere umpires; finally, there is the fact that many of the more senior judges are required to add the burdens of judicial administration to their ordinary judicial functions.
Kennedy LJ, Vice President of the Queen's Bench personifies this last trend. For the last 8 years he has masterminded the deployment of the higher judiciary. He has made my, and my two predecessor's, job possible. At the end of next term, he is resigning as Vice President to become Treasurer of Grays but I am glad to say he will continue as a member of the Court of Appeal.
All our judges are to be congratulated on their industry, but we owe an immense and special debt to the substantial number of judges who, like Paul, shoulder onerous additional administrative responsibilities and to their wives like Virginia, for supporting them in these various roles.
Those who perform these essential duties would, I am sure, accept that the additional duties could not be performed were it not for their ability to work in the closest collaboration with the LCD and its offspring, the Court Service. Paul, for example, I am sure would acknowledge the immense support he has had from David Edwards of my office. It is thanks to this collaboration that we have been able, with the help of the Judicial Studies Board, to implement the radical reforms to the civil justice system and to absorb Human Rights into domestic law with extraordinary success. I am confident they will tackle the forthcoming reforms to criminal Justice based on Lord Justice Auld's report with equal skill.
Lord Mayor you mentioned the City's planning problems. Here we await the publication of Sir Andrew Legett's report. My own solution which I recommended 10 years ago and which has been supported strongly by a Government report chaired by Professor Grant, is an Environmental Tribunal, which can tackle all environmental disputes, including those to which you have referred. It is a one-stop environmental shop. It is staffed not only by judges but also by distinguished members of other professions. In Australia and New Zealand it is working well. We could perhaps join forces and together lead the government to water even if we cannot force it to drink.
Another example of an extra judicial contribution made by the judiciary is in relation to the Parole Board.
In the past, concerns have been expressed by the media about the early release of prisoners on parole. The Parole Board is in fact the unsung hero of the criminal justice system. With its substantial judicial input, led by its two High Court Judges, Scot Baker and Bill Gage, its 100 members consider 7000 cases a year. Over the last two years only 3.7% of offenders released on licence on the recommendation of the Parole Board have had to be recalled to custody for committing further offences. A remarkable contrast with the number of offenders who all to frequently re-offend within a depressingly shot time of their release from prison. The Board is meeting one of its prime objectives of protecting the public. It is rightly regarded as the most efficient and effective parole board in the world. At the Dinner last year, the Lord Chancellor announced his initiative to support the legal systems of the new democracies. Your experiences in Croatia provide vivid evidence of the need for the Lord Chancellor's initiative. I regard it as part of the responsibility of our judiciary to provide what I know is valued help to our less fortunate judicial colleagues abroad.
Over the last year, the judiciary has strongly supported the initiative; there have been visits by judges to many of the new democracies trying to improve on the situation you describe. For example, Coleman J has spent a considerable period in the Czech Republic helping set up a Commercial Court and also producing training modules for their judiciary. As has been reported in the press one of our most energetic judges has been prepared to venture to Bermuda to try and salvage the Thyssen litigation. Happily if what I read is correct, the mere threat of his arrival armed with his Civil Procedure Rules has been sufficient to stimulate the parties to start to negotiate with a view to achieving a settlement.
There are many other demands to which I could refer which illustrate how the skills of the English judiciary are needed throughout the world. This help must be given. The problem is that distinguished service abroad adds to the difficulties of the troops serving at home.
Lord Mayor, in the past, concerns have been expressed by the most authoritative sources that unless the Court Service is placed under the direct control of the full time judiciary, the judiciary could lose its independence, without which it can not effectively provide justice.
The Court Service is subject to the control of the Lord Chancellor and his Department but the independence of the judiciary has not suffered. Why is this?
It is because of the unique historical constitutional role of the Lord Chancellor which is as old as that of the Lord Mayor of London. Central to that role is the fact that the LC is not only a judge, but also the head of the judiciary. It is because he is head of the judiciary that the judiciary can and do work in such close partnership with the Court Service.
It is not an exaggeration to say that that partnership is at the heart of our justice system. It has grown out of the relationship that the Lord Chancellor, as its head, has with the judiciary. If any other Minister were to be placed in charge of the Court Service, this would certainly be a misfortune and probably a calamity. I say that bearing in mind the illustration of the distinction between a misfortune and a calamity once given by Disraeli. He said, "if Gladstone fell in a lake that would be a misfortune, but if some one pulled him out that would be a calamity!"
I do not believe that the importance of the relationship between the LCD, the Court Service and the judiciary is generally understood in government. I understand why this is so. Unless you have had first hand experience of being a judge or working in partnership with the judiciary, you can not appreciate how important the partnership is and how it supports judicial independence.
To give but one example, it would be intolerable if the government could select the judge to hear the many cases which are brought against them by members of the public. The listing of cases is recognised for this reason as being a judicial responsibility. In practice in the RCJ, as in the rest of the country, the very important function of listing is performed by civil servants who are members of the Court Service. In performing this task, their responsibility is to the judiciary and not the government.
Some argue we should abolish or at least radically transform the office of Lord Chancellor. I could not disagree more strongly.
The critics naturally refer to the Lord Chancellor's three hats, the fact that in addition to his judicial responsibilities, he has his role in the legislature and his role as the head of a great department of State and as a member of the Cabinet. The parliamentary role creates only a cosmetic potential conflict. But the LC must scrupulously observe the distinction between the other two roles.
To assist in this regard, and provided I am still Chief Justice when Lord Irvine eventually retires, which is most unlikely, I will present his successor with 3 different hats to avoid any risk of confusion in the future! A flat cap or, if we still have a New Labour administration, a beret to wear when performing his political duties; a silk topper to wear when on parliamentary business; and a boater perhaps with a Garrick silk band, for judicial duties. I am afraid a wig would not be appropriate, at least until we have a woman Lord, or should I say Lady Chancellor, who follows the example of the last Speaker of the Commons and discards a wig when presiding in the Chamber for her much more becoming coiffure.
Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress we thank you.
Ends
Please note that speeches published on this website reflect the individual judicial office-holder's personal views, unless otherwise stated. If you have any queries please contact the Judicial Communications Office.