Suchergebnisse

Reflects on critical media responses to the ruling in R. (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (SC). Discusses the history of such criticism, whether it may harm judicial independence, and whether criticism of the Lord Chancellor's response to the media by part of the legal profession is misguided, owing to the changing nature of the office. Suggests why judges must be their own media managers.

There is a common perception that, prior to the exclusion of serving judges from the House of Lords in 2009, a 'politics convention' operated which required them to stay aloof of partisan political controversy and which ensured that they contributed only rarely. On this view the presence of the Law Lords in Parliament prior to 2009 presented a judicial independence and separation of powers problem in theory only. An examination of the contributions of serving Law Lords and other judicial peers to debate in the House of Lords from 1876-2009 (and retired judges 1876-2015) reveals that the Convention either did not exist or was frequently ignored. While most judges were infrequent participants in parliamentary debate, some were enthusiastic – a small amongst the most active parliamentarians in the Lords. The most active judicial peers were conservative in their politics and the best predictor that a judge would be active in the House was an association with conservative politics or causes.