Justice in the age of insecurity

9 February 2011 by

Two of the UK’s top judges have given fascinating speeches this week on justice in the age of insecurity. One by the head of the supreme court warns that budget cuts will imperil the independence of the judiciary. The other, by the head of the court of appeal, argues that despite not being able to tell the government what to do, UK courts can provide effective protection of fundamental rights.

The speeches offer fascinating and sometimes controversial perspectives on our odd but in many ways admirable constitutional system, as well as warnings that strained budgets and political meddling could do it damage.

The Supreme Court was set up in August 2010 to replace the house of lords committee which was formally the highest level of appeal in the UK justice system. The main aim of the reform, which some have said was unnecessary, was, in the words of Lord Falconer at the time, to achieve a “full and transparent separation between the judiciary and the legislature“.

But on its first anniversary, the court’s chief executive, whose salary is in fact paid by the government, warned that budget cuts could imperil that independence. At one point the court was even listed as a quango whose future was “still to be decided”. Meanwhile, the court’s judges have also expressed their concerns that its budget is set by the government, and the Economist amongst others has highlighted the serious consequences for justice which this could entail.

In light of the now imminent budget cuts, Lord Phillips has taken up the topic in a speech entitled Judicial Independence & Accountability: A View from the Supreme Court.

The speech ostensibly takes a wide view of judicial independence. Lord Phillips reviews the judicial appointments system, agreeing that the “controversial” veto of the Lord Chancellor – a government appointee – is “justified”.

But it is really about money. Phillips laments that the system initially proposed, where the court would be almost financially independent, was ultimately replaced by the system where the court has to beg or borrow from the overall justice budget. Although this was satisfactory in the court’s heady first year, the second year will be quite different:

In the course of negotiating these I received a letter from the Lord Chancellor indicating the scale of the economies that he expected the Supreme Court to make in terms that I can only describe as peremptory.

The current system, therefore, does not guarantee institutional independence:

We are, in reality, dependant each year upon what we can persuade the Ministry of Justice of England and Wales to give us by way of “contribution”. This is not a satisfactory situation for the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is already leading to a tendency on the part of the Ministry of Justice to try to gain the Supreme Court as an outlying part of its empire.

Moreover, the Chief Executive of the court should, contrary to present arrangements, owe her primary loyalty to the head of the court, not the minister for justice.

Phillips also tackles Michael Howard’s comments that the power of judges has increased and ought to be diminished as they are unelected and unaccountable. Indeed, Phillips admits that over half of the Supreme Court’s cases now arise from judicial review of government decisions. But Howard is misunderstanding the point:

When we review administrative action we do not substitute our decisions for those of the executive. We check that the executive has acted in accordance with the law, as laid down by Parliament

So, in summary, the head of the supreme court thinks that court is imperfect but doing a good job to challenge whilst not overruling the government, and should be given a proper budget to continue doing so. Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said this morning that the court should not be in such a “unique” position and Phillips’ comments were a “storm in a teacup“. Judging from these remarks, supreme court may have to wait longer for true independence.

By contrast, Lord Neuberger spoke about physical, as opposed to economic, insecurity, in Protecting human rights in an age of insecurity. His speech was more theoretical than political, and provides an interesting perspective on the perceived imperfections in the English justice system which in Neuberger’s eyes in fact perfect it.

He begins with presenting the classic battle between liberty and security, brought into focus by the recent debate over control orders. Neuberger invokes Karl Popper to argue that the dilemma is more apparent than real:

For there is no freedom if it is not secured by the state; and conversely, only a state which is controlled by free citizens can offer them any reasonable security at all.

Neuberger goes on to discuss the UK’s famously unwritten constitution, which empowers judges to tell the government what it has done wrong but does not allow them to strike down properly enacted laws (I recently pointed out the problems which relate to this).

The Human Rights Act, which has been “sometimes said” to enable courts to enter the “realm of policy”, has in Neuberger’s view done nothing of the sort. Rather,

the 1998 Act affirms parliamentary sovereignty… The 1998 Act enables the courts to subject primary legislation to rigorous rights-based scrutiny, but it does not permit the courts to strike down such legislation on such grounds.

Some would say this demonstrates the true weakness of courts to protect rights. Not Neuberger. In fact, and as he admits, paradoxically:

[the UK’s] wider constitutional traditions are based on a respect for, and commitment to, the rule of law, and they developed as part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional settlement. … They are traditions which were fought for (occasionally violently) and developed over many years and were formed in the crucible of injustice. And they are lived traditions. In this they are more powerful than any document, whether a constitution, a statute or a court order.

So the commitment to the rule of law is “not a formalistic commitment, but a full-blooded one“. It means that “the ultimate decision lies in the hands of the people, expressed through elections, not through unelected judges.” He concludes:

it is the hearts and minds of men and women which are the true protectors of human rights, and the common law underscores and represents a living embodiment of what is in the peoples’ hearts and minds.

One notable absence from Neuberger’s neat constitutional picture is the European Court of Human Rights, whose decisions the government has agreed to abide by. It surely follows from his argument that the similarly unelected and more distant judges in Strasbourg should not have powers which are denied their UK equivalents. Perhaps he feared entering the complex recent debate on this issue.

Philips’ and Neuberger’s speeches approach similar questions through the lenses of different kinds of insecurity. But both invoke the same principle: namely, a deep trust of the UK’s common law system, evolved over centuries into a system which encourages robust judicial independence whilst also privileging the decisions of elected officials over unelected judges.

Neuberger suggests courts embody a system of rights which exists in the hearts of the population. Phillips, however, makes the grittier point that these rights will be meaningless unless the highest judges are permitted to get on with their job without fear of losing the robes from their backs.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: