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 : Annual Judges' Dinner [2002] UKSpeech NJIJM (17 July 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/speeches/2002/NJIJM.html
Cite as: [2002] UKSpeech NJIJM
[New search] [Help]
Lord Woolf
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Annual Judges' Dinner
17 July 2002
My Lord Mayor, My Lord High Chancellor, My Lords, Master of the Rolls, Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, ladies and gentlemen.
Your toast is greatly appreciated by the judiciary. Since the time of Elizabeth I, the Lord Mayor has annually provided the judiciary with magnificent hospitality at the annual dinner held for judges. The dinner tonight is no exception.
Your year as Lord Mayor started in the shadow of September the 11th, but your parade to the Law Courts on the 10th November 2001 brought back to the City a much-needed sense of gaiety and excitement. The Lady Mayoress, as she flew through the air with the greatest of ease suspended from her flying trapeze struck just the right note for the start of the Mayorial year. That achievement was only surpassed by her even more daring exploit on Monday of absailing down Canary Wharf in support of the Lord Mayor's Square Smile Charity. Lady Mayoress, this evening the judiciary applauds you.
We also admire the City's commitment, through the Bridge House Estates, to the less prosperous communities that surround the City. The City's millennium bridge may have had a wobbly start, but your and the City's commitment to the City's deprived neighbours has been rock steady.
My Lord Mayor, the sentiments you have expressed about the need to maintain standards will be welcomed by every judge in the country. As to standards within the judiciary, this country starts with a great advantage. Our judiciary, and I am certainly no exception, are on occasions criticised by the media. Sometimes the criticism is justified, usually it is not. However, what would be totally unwarranted would be any criticism of the judiciary's integrity or commitment to the cause of justice.
The quality of the judiciary in which we can take pride and for which I am grateful is a testimonial to the immense care and industry which our present Lord Chancellor, like his predecessors, devotes to judicial appointments. The Lord Chancellor is now assisted by Sir Colin Campbell, the First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments. I welcome the creation of the Commission. It should mean that, not only is the appointment system fair, it will be seen to be fair. It is essential that we continue to appoint to the bench people of the highest ability and unquestionable integrity. Fortunately, there are still sufficient candidates of this calibre to appoint because such qualities are still prominent among members of the legal profession.
This was not always so. There was one late 17th century Lord Chief Justice, Lord Pemberton, who in his early life failed to demonstrate the degree of rectitude to be expected from a CJ. According to Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices, he squandered his means in lascivious and profligate living so that he ended up in Fleet prison. However, the prison served him so well "as a school, a university and an inn of court" that on his release, he was cordially welcomed by my own Inn, the Inner Temple, as a member.
As far as I am aware he was unique amongst my predecessors in having learnt his law on the inside. His experience did have one other benefit. He was exceptionally sensitive to the well being of prisoners which is a quality to be commended in any judge.
Undoubtedly, there is no substitute for first hand experience. I learnt this when I visited a prison in Catalonia. I was immensely impressed by the liberal and constructive nature of the regime so I asked the governor for the explanation. The answer was that most of the members of the Government had personal experience of life on the inside. They had been imprisoned by General Franco!
Is this a precedent which should be followed here? Of course I am not suggesting a spell inside for my brother and sister judges. But every judge who has to pass sentence should regard it as a duty, regularly to visit prisons.
A degree of caution is, however, desirable if you are asked to sample the food. When I visited the Spanish prison I was asked to meet a British prisoner who had prepared for me a sumptious meal. After I had eaten the meal, I inquired why he was in prison. The reply; "he had killed his wife by poisoning". I am sure it was psychosomatic, but I have never been so ill.
The Chancery judges who do not normally have any responsibility for sentencing have just set a good example. Two visits were organised for them by the Vice Chancellor. After court on two occasions a coach trip was organised for them by the Vice Chancellor. Not to the seaside, but on the first occasion to Pentonville and on the second to Holloway. I understand they found the environment at the latter deeply shocking, though they were impressed by the Governors and the staff. Charles Dickens would be impressed by the change that has taken place in the outlook of the judges he described in Bleak House.
None the less, we cannot afford to be complacent. We have to be prepared for those who in Oscar Wilde's words believe that nothing succeeds like excess. Respect for the rule of law is critical to the health of any country. However, that respect will only be retained if we continually refurbish the institutions on which it depends.
It is to the credit of the present government that it has committed itself to undertaking the often unpopular task of reforming those institutions. The Lord Chancellor is entitled to great credit for masterminding the introduction of the Human Rights Act. This statute has ingeniously managed to inject human rights standards into our law without damaging the delicate balance of our constitution.
The Human Rights Act is a success story. It has resulted in real benefits for the public. I do not imagine for a moment that those benefits are universally appreciated. However, it is my belief that they will come increasingly to be recognised. Far from the HRA damaging the values to which we in this country are rightly attached, it will be shown to enhance those values.
The judiciary were able to play their part in achieving this success due to the excellent training provided by the Judicial Studies Board for every member of the judiciary. The Chairman, Lord Justice Waller, Judge Pearl, its then director of studies, and the judges who helped with the training, including Lord Justice Sedley, are entitled to our thanks.
The successful implementation of the HRA provides three important messages. The first is that reforms will only be successful if the ground for their introduction is properly prepared. Secondly, the process of change must be adequately resourced. Thirdly, that we have a judiciary and a legal profession which, contrary to the popular image, are prepared to embrace reform if they are involved in the process.
We have just learnt the contents of the White Paper on criminal justice. The judiciary share with the government a recognition that our criminal justice system is not working as well as it should. This undermines the rule of law and is very damaging to the public's confidence in the criminal justice system. It is also hugely wasteful in resources since a vast expenditure is dismally failing to reduce crime. I cite just two figures in support of this; 72% of 18 to 20 year olds were reconvicted within 2 years of release from prison; the overall cost to the criminal justice system of reoffending by ex prisoners comes to at least a £11 billion a year.
The judiciary broadly welcome the White Paper. Attention of the media has so far focused on the few proposals contained that are controversial - those on jury trial and double jeopardy. The majority of the critical reforms are largely uncontroversial. What is required had already been carefully spelt out in the extremely authoritative and convincing Auld and Halliday reports upon which the White Paper is based. If the White Paper is properly implemented, and this will require the involvement of all those engaged in the justice system and not just Government, then we will have a criminal justice system that not only deserves the support of the public, but which will obtain that support. They will the see the benefits which will result from a unified judiciary which includes, as a welcome member of the family of judges, the magistracy.
A critical question is will the reforms be properly resourced? If they are not, they will fail. The White Paper would then have raised expectations only to dash them, further damaging public confidence. We must ensure that punishment in the community and the supervision of prisoners on their release are properly resourced, otherwise the appalling waste of public resources and the damage to the criminal justice system will continue.
I hope, but it is too early to be satisfied, that the public expenditure review offers some comfort so far as criminal justice is concerned. I am afraid, so far as civil and family justice is concerned, the position is otherwise. I recognise that the huge demands across the public service mean that the government must set priorities and all that I can ask is that the needs of the other aspects of justice besides the criminal are properly considered.
Unfortunately, during current and previous reviews this has not happened as a result of a flawed approach on the part of the Treasury. The Treasury's approach is based on the misconception that is possible for the courts to provide the public with justice on a full cost recovery basis - that is for the cost to the courts of dealing with particular types of case to be covered in full by the fees paid by the parties. The corollary of this is that no more should be spent on providing a system of civil justice than can be recovered from the litigants as court fees. I would have thought the policy is self evidently nonsense. Yet this policy was adopted in 1992 without Parliamentary scrutiny and has continued since, not withstanding the protests of the judiciary. No other country of which I am aware has such a policy and when I mention it to colleagues abroad they are astonished. Its effects are pernicious and serious and mean that the funding review has been unfair.
I know the President of the Family Division is deeply concerned about the policy's impact on resources for cases involving critical issues concerning the future of children. There is already partial exemption because, in the great majority of cases, there cannot possibly be full cost recovery. But the policy still limits the resources available for resolving these disputes. It is the speedy and effective resolution of such disputes which will help to reduce the number of future criminals.
It is generally accepted that the Civil Justice reforms are a success, but a lack of resources and continuing cut backs are threatening to undermine what has been achieved. Throughout the court system there are problems caused by inadequate resources. So far, thanks to the dedication of the judiciary and the court service, we are just about coping, but the strain of doing so cannot be sustained indefinitely. If we do not have relief soon, there is a danger that we will be back to where we were before the reforms. That we obtain such relief is critical because, if the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill now before Parliament is passed in its present form, it is likely to place very heavy additional demands on the Administrative Court. Demands with which, at the present time, the Administrative Court is not equipped to deal.
The detailed consequences of the funding review are yet to be worked out but we know that there will inevitably have to be further cuts even this year because of the demands of the Treasury. The prospects for a new building to house the Commercial Court, the Chancery Division and the Construction and Technology Court look bleak indeed, but these are flagship courts which attract business to this country from abroad. They also play a significant role in regulating the integrity and honesty of the commercial and financial communities so that we can hope that there is a reduced chance of an Enron occurring here.
In addition up and down the country there are a huge number of tribunals that every day make thousands of decisions that, while they may not hit the headlines, are of great importance to those involved. Many years ago I described the situation as being a hotch potch in need of a blender. The Lord Chancellor recognised that this was an another area where reform was needed and asked Sir Andrew Leggatt to produce his report as to the changes required. This he did in 2001. I understand that it is accepted that his recommendations would result in a more efficient and just tribunal system. Now it appears almost certain that a lack of resources will prevent Leggatt being implemented - at least in the immediate future.
These few examples raise the question starkly as to whether we are giving the Justice System too low a priority in relation to resources. I believe we are.
The judges, led by Lord Justice Brooke, who is in charge of modernisation, are playing their part. We are all becoming IT enthusiasts, but the enthusiasm will be dissipated if a fair share of resources are not made available.
There are 2 other developments to which I should make reference. The first is the reform of the Judges' Council. Despite its title, the Judge's Council has never been representative of the judiciary as a whole nor has it been a particularly effective body. A working party chaired by the President, ably supported by Waller LJ, has produced a report with broad support that should correct this situation. We are in danger of having for the first time a body which can speak authoritively on behalf of the whole judiciary.
The other development is the Judges and Schools initiative. Thanks to His Honour Judge Rivlin and his team from the Court Service, we have successfully launched our programme for involving the judiciary in schools which I hope will give the next generation a better understanding of the importance of the justice system. To date, in response to requests 1,806 copies of the information pack have been sent out to a total of 538 schools and requests are continuing to come in. These impressive figures do not take account of information that schools have downloaded direct from the Court Service website.
The launch of the Judges in Schools booklet took place at the House of Commons in the presence of a number of schoolchildren. The Minister, Rosie Winterton, conducted a straw poll of the youngsters present on whether we should get rid of wigs. There was a sizeable majority in favour of retention.
That brings me finally to an initiative that has not been successful. The sorry tale began because solicitor advocates wanted to wear wigs. I embarked upon a consultation exercise among my colleagues, hoping we could end up with a sensible robe and no wigs. The initiative came to a sticky end as a result of my being cross-examined by the President of the Council of Circuit Judges. I was asked whether I was in favour of a simple gown buttoning up to the neck which would disguise what lay beneath. Yes, said I. Then came the beguilingly simple question, like those worn in Luxembourg? Again I said yes. This prompted the devastating repost, you mean a Euro gown! Happily, I have been rescued by the Lord Chancellor who has decided there should be a consultation exercise on Court Dress.
My Lord Mayor I cannot complain that it is a dull time to be a judge.
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.