When their Lordships open their mouths extra-judicially …

23 March 2012 by

Do Lord Phillips, Baroness Hale and other members of the judiciary have the right to say what they think? At first glance that seems like a ridiculous question. Firstly, it is their job to express their views on the legal disputes coming before them on an almost daily basis. Secondly, to look at it from an entirely different perspective, they enjoy the same protections granted by article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as the rest of us. Of course they have the right to say what they think.

But what about when they are acting in a non-judicial capacity – when they are giving speeches or participating in conferences or being interviewed? What about when the topic of discussion is not a narrowly defined legal point but a more politically charged issue of public debate? The answer must be the same. They have the right to express their views, but whether or not they should is a more nuanced question. This was the topic selected by the Lord Neuberger MR in his Presidential Address to the Holdsworth Club on 2 March 2012.

It is a characteristically perspicacious review of the approach of judges when contributing to public discourse over recent decades, starting with the “Kilmuir Rules” of 1955. At that time Lord Kilmuir was the Lord Chancellor, and he had been approached by the BBC with a view to interviewing a number of senior judges to assist the BBC in a broadcast about the great judges of the past. In a letter of reply he expressed the view that the judiciary should not get involved in broadcasts:

…every utterance which [a judge] makes in public, except in the course of the actual performance of his judicial duties, must necessarily bring him within the scope of criticism. It would moreover, be inappropriate for the Judiciary to be associated with any series of talks or anything which could be fairly interpreted as entertainment…

The rationale of the Kilmuir Rules was to protect judicial independence, one of the cardinal principles of our constitutional system. Yet one might justifiably take the view that judicial independence is not the same as judicial aloofness, and thus the Kilmuir rules were abandoned by Lord Mackay LC in 1987, ironically on the basis that such rules were inconsistent with judicial independence. The view from the woolsack at that time was that judges needed to be able to decide for themselves when it was appropriate to speak out.

And now, as the Master of the Rolls himself points out, how times have changed! From balking at invitations to participate in broadcasts about the great judges of the past (query whether in the eyes of the general public such a broadcast could be “fairly interpreted as entertainment”), to Channel 4 documentaries about the personnel of our highest court, and judicial appearances on Masterchef (you’ll have to read the address to find out who). Judges seem to be playing an increasingly active and visible role in modern society.

There are a number of reasons for this. One reason that Lord Neuberger identifies is that with the recent constitutional reforms, our most senior judges have lost the ability to contribute to public debate as legislators sitting in the House of Lords – “the remaining avenues are almost inevitably likely to be more travelled”. Another reason might be that, pursuant to the nature of the jurisprudence that the ECHR has inspired in our legal system and the sorts of cases that judges are now being asked to decide, many judges now cannot avoid being seen to play an active role in the resolution of politically controversial issues, and with their increased involvement in such issues in the course of carrying out their judicial function, there is an increasing appetite for them to explain their understanding of their proper role.

One does not have to look far to find numerous examples of speeches and articles of judges, current, former and prospective, on the vexed topic of the relationship between the courts and the other branches of government, particularly as it relates to human rights law. See for example the 2009 Annual Lord Renton Lecture delivered by Elias LJ, or more recently the 2011 F.A. Mann Lecture, delivered by Jonathan Sumption QC, now Lord Sumption JSC (see our post on this lecture). In the latter, the speaker expressed the view that:

The incorporation of the Human Rights Convention into English law has significantly shifted the boundaries between political and legal decision-making in areas some of which raise major political issues, such as immigration, penal policy, security and policing, privacy and freedom of expression. It has also extended the scope of judicial review from ministerial and administrative decisions to primary legislation. Few Convention rights are absolute. Most of them are qualified in the Convention by reservations and exceptions on specified policy grounds, so far as these are held to be “necessary in a democratic society” or some similar phrase. Litigation founded on these rights almost always turns ultimately on the question what inroads into them are justified in the public interest. This involves a difficult balance between competing public interests, which is an inherently political exercise. By giving legal effect to the Convention, however, we have transferred it out of the political arena altogether, and into the domain of judicial decision-making where public accountability has no place.

Perhaps more strikingly, he said of the courts’ role in relation to immigration and asylum issues:

…the decisions of the courts on the abuse of discretionary powers are based, far more often than the courts have admitted, on a judgment about what it is thought right for Parliament to wish to do. Such judgments are by their nature political. By this I do not mean that the judges who decided them were politically partisan, but simply that they were dealing with matters (namely the merits of policy decisions) which in a democracy are the proper function of Parliament and of ministers answerable to Parliament and the electorate.

This analysis is in itself an important contribution to an issue of public debate which is both legal and political in nature, and such commentary is arguably an inevitable consequence of the way our legal system has developed in recent decades. However, it may also open up the judiciary to criticism, or have an impact on both their individual and institutional independence (at the time of his address Lord Sumption was not yet sitting at the Supreme Court, but his appointment had been announced). Thus, the Master of the Rolls in his address, whilst acknowledging that times change and that the tone of Lord Sumption’s comments was entirely seemly, encourages the judiciary to retain a degree of circumspection, at least when venturing to comment on more weighty issues than mango and passion fruit crème brulee.

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

Read more:

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 hague convention 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 refugee 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: