The Judges: Power, Politics and the People - Episode 5 - Lord Phillips

a system which locks people up like animals in cages for 23 hours out of 24 is basically inhumane do we have a good [Music] system no I don't think we do my terms of reference were to report within a year which I'm quite sure they realized was impossible the documentation was so heavy that literally they had to survey the building it was a period of my life when I was was rarely stressed your family worried that you might even be on the verge of a nervous breakdown no I think I probably was this is the judges power politics and the people hosted by the University of law this week I'm speaking with Lord Phillips of worth matravers Nicholas Phillips is one of the most senior judicial figures in the land he has held all three highest posts in the judicial hierarchy he was senior law Lord and then became the first president of the newly created UK Supreme Court in 2009 holding the post until 2012 it was the climax of a career which had also seen him serve as Master of the roles and as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in that position he oversaw the modernization of Judges robes including the abolition of wigs in the Civil courts Lord Phillips went to Branston school and after national service to King's College Cambridge where he read law he carved out a successful career as a commercial Barrister he also chaired the inquiry into BSE or mad cow disease he sits as across benture in the House of Lords and as a non-permanent UK judge in the quarter final appeal of Hong Kong I began by asking Lord Phillips what his various judicial posts had been like I've always enjoyed whatever I was doing with one exception um and looking back on it um the work was enjoyable what everyone was doing was positive as far as life's enjoyment was concerned but I don't remember any of the particular roles being more pleasant or exciting than than another than another well that's not quite true being Lord Chief Justice at the change of over time was more demanding and exciting than being the first president of the Supreme Court where your role was really to make sure that the change from the law Lords was seamless yes so more of the same and of course we'll come back to this but when you became law chief justice it was a different role the role had changed the role was changing was changing at that time and you were the first incumbent of the changed role and when you say as you did just a minute ago with one exception I think you're referring to the BC inquir B inquiry which I'd like to come back to again if I may because that that's interesting in itself um anyway so let's talk about the law chief justice then you were the first holder in the post after the uh 2005 act which brought in all the reforms and made it a different job made it more responsible how how was it different well you you became the head of the Judiciary of England and Wales in place of the Lord Chancellor and so this caus for certain administrative changes in order to get a grip of the whole scenario and so one of the unusual things I did was to Ask eigor Judge to be head of Criminal Justice oh yes and that was a new position uh yes I mean almost by definition being Lord chief justice meant you were head of Criminal Justice and everyone thought of the role of Lord chief justice as being the senior criminal judge in the land yes and so the focus was all on crime as far as the Lord chief justice was concerned this now had to be replaced by a much wider administrative duties as well as being head of the Judiciary of less of a judge and more of a manager or well is that there were add additional administrative tasks yes and so um and eigor judge in a way was a classic Lord chief justice with a criminal background and um you know if he'd been appointed Lord Chief Justice at that time it would have been a perfectly logical appointment yes um and it seemed to me that he would be of great assistance and in the right place if he took over being head of Criminal Justice so you had him uh as your right hand at your right hand if you like um and you then had to start dealing with ministers and um fighting for budgets and things like that how did you find the job did you find it stressful I didn't i' I have no recollection of being stressed challenging and um it it gave scope for me to try to put in place various ideas I had about improvements the only one I succeeded on uh was changing judicial dress yes you did I think a lot of people will remember you for that I think that's probably the only thing lot people will remember me for but I had other ideas which I didn't succeed in getting across one was to make the Civil Justice System Echo the criminal justice system where you had a single court but the important cases were presided over by high court judges and the less important by Circuit judges and that seem to work perfectly well with a single court system and when you looked at the Civil system the difference between the county court and the high court struck me as on the face fairly absurd because most of the high court cases were being tried by County Court judges circuit judges so why did that not happen that reform well I couldn't demonstrate to the Lord Chancellor head of the justice system that there were going to be significant benefits savings I think economic benefits probably yes it would have involved you know quite a lot of uh change it would but there would have been a single system you wouldn't have had a white book for the high court and it's true it would have been a big upheaval interesting how did you find your dealings with the Lord chancellors and was it more than one uh it was largely Lord forner yeah and I got on with him very well yes and I mean he was a great I mean he was behind the changes he was indeed so it was in his interest to make them work yes and when you read about the debate when you read the debates in the House of Lords as to what he envisaged the new Supreme Court as being um they are discordant to some extent with the way things turned out can you remember just looking back before we come to robes and wigs which I would like to do can you remember how all this happened it was it was a bit of a bombshell wasn't it do you remember first hearing about it I remember very well first hearing about it because I persuaded I was then master of Rose I persuaded Harry wolf it' be a good idea to have a weekend away with the the kind of senior members of the law Chancellor's department just discussing Justice in general and improvements that could be made and we we went to this very nice little country uh in really but it had all the resources you needed for Conference Center yes uh Hayden Phillips permanent secretary didn't turn up oh you didn't and it was while we were there that the news broke that the Lord Chancellor was being abolished and the members of his Department who were there had noide idea this was going to happen and of course you senior Judiciary didn't know either didn't know either and I remember Lord wolf being on the phone to uh Lord Faulkner and chatting about what Lord Faulkner's role would be which was only then Enis as a kind of caretaker role yes so it was quite a har wolf saying to him well that means he won't be head of the Judiciary Charlie you realize that and I wasn't sure there's entire agreement about that anyway it was a moment of high drama a moment of high drama and was it a moment also of of uh anger or or worry or or I mean what were the judges I mean shellshock it was much too early at that moment to work out all the implications um I had been in favor of a a supreme court um as a matter of theory but it em been government policy no that was one aspect but of course the getting rid of the law Chancellor which was never managed completely and in any case the on the face of it that must have seemed a bit of a shock yes well that was a shock yes and as you say changed the again yes the implications hadn't been fully considered no and then years elapsed while there were negotiations which Harry wolf was leading as Lord chief justice um as to what the changes would involve and particularly the role of the Lord Chancellor which was going to be preserved that's what how it evolved and the independence of the Supreme Court and I think he did quite a good job didn't he in in negotiating to protect the judges position yes yes and if you look at the act it envisages that the Lord Chancellor would have a you know legal qualifications um and so be in a position to appreciate the importance of the rule of law they haven't the holders haven't had legal qualifications I don't think anyone would have envisaged at the time the ACT went through that there would be people appointed to that what we saw as a really important government position yes who didn't have the kind of experience that would well it's it's changed we believed was necessary as a qualification the role has changed a lot and perhaps we'll talk about that a little bit further one of the big things you did and people will remember you for is this change of robes why did you think that we needed a change of robes for the judges well I think personally I always hated the business taking off one collar and putting on a wind collar and all of that but I mean more fundamentally High Court judges had five different uniforms yes they had uh criminal and civil in the winter criminal and civil in the summer and that dated back to the time when there was no um heating so you needed some really warm robes for the winter and change in the summer and finally a black G if you were sitting doing public look law and I thought five different working uniforms was simply absurd and also quite expensive and did you want to get rid of wigs as well for criminal you did no no you never wanted I I was had an entirely open mind I could see the benefits of a a degree of Disguise in the criminal court because judges and jurors and councel all mingled together in public transport and so on in this day age you don't have judges being conveyed to Court in in grander um and and also for a very young Barrister it gives a certain gravitas and at that time of course it not just Baris but solicitors who got the right to wear weeks there was a bit of controversy about it wasn't there I mean I think some people didn't like the fact that the new robes looked a little bit European uh there was a considerable majority in favor of change there was no majority in favor of what particular new uniform we should have and so I it was actually designed by a leading designer was leading designer with hindsight I'm not sure the best job was done I think the the current uniform looked better with a a cand had a cband in a different color reflecting the the uh grade of Judge so really you were a modernizer in that role weren't you oh in that role certainly yeah and generally perhaps justice but before we go on a bit more about that and get on to sentencing can I ask you how you came into the law and did you you didn't have a lawyer in the family your father wasn't a lawyer Your Mother wasn't my grandfather was called to the bar by gra in he never practiced as a barrister but he practiced in the court service and um ended up as what was rather brutally called in those days a master in lunacy which would now be an official called for protection anyway so I inherited his wig right um and he was very pleased did you wear it yes I did and I handed it on to a young bar who oh how nice yeah um but what really got me interested in the law was a a silk called Walter rabburn who came down to our school Branson when I was there age about 15 to taught kind of current current affairs about being a barrister and who he inspired you he inspired me what was it about it that you fancied well it sounded fun I um I can't pretend I went into the law out of kind of altruistic motives to improve Society I went into the law because it seemed to me to be a bit prospects of being a really enjoyable way of life when you went in at that stage obviously after University because you you went to bronston and then it was University but not before you've done national service tell me about that that's right well I had a friend at school whose father was a naval officer and so he said he was going going to try and do national service in the Navy and so I thought well I'll I'll do the same um and it was quite difficult to get into the Navy whereas the Army the was largely of conscripts national servicemen the Navy was largely a professional service with very few National servicemen anyway I got taken on in the Navy I served on the low deck for a year and then a year as an officer um and you enjoyed it did you I enjoyed it enormously most of the time I was out patrolling Cyprus in little mind sweepers anyway when I went up to Cambridge I read law and then of course I had to do a year um for the bar exams and eat I think it was 120 dinners or something amazing number anyway uh where you were supposed to meet barristers and learn about the law in fact you met fellow students and it was largely a waste of time in those days they didn't have any kind of activities for students which the ins now all have but one evening I was sitting with a couple of barristers who' been working late and coming to dining hall and got talking to them and one of them when he heard I'd been in the Navy said oh I practice in admiralty why don't you come and do a pupilage with me oh I see so that's how you went down that road never heard of admiralty I had no idea what it was so I went and kind of looked looked up what what's admiralty law and then also looked up the individual who was barish Sheena saw he was appearing in a lot of cases and you enjoyed it and so I enjoyed it yes I did I joined his James as a pupil and then I stayed on as tenant did you have Ambitions from an early stage to go onto the bench on the contr or was it just a natural progression on the contrary um I mean I I I think I'm trying to analyze myself fairly laidback and I I didn't follow a career in the law out of as a kind of ambitious path to go up to the next step I didn't really envisage myself being a QC when I started at the bar let alone being a judge um and in those days these not taking silk that's something you applied for but going on the bench you didn't apply no you you were tapped on the shoulder not tapped on the shoulder summoned by Lord Hellam I want you to go on the high court bench and is that what happened at that's yes exactly what happened to me at that stage I didn't particularly want to come on the high court bench I was having a very enjoyable Life as a commercial silk but I suppose you couldn't say no to Lord ham if you said no to Lord ham you were not invited again so rather reluctantly I said all right so you gave up what would have been quite a lucrative practice I imagine at the commercial bar well so certainly looking at Chambers now the answer is yes and it was quite lucrative then I mean and how did you find it on the high court bench did you enjoy that or did you think this is not really what I like I I thought there would be much more camaraderie on the high court bench than there was I imagined that judges would wander into each other's rooms in the Royal courts of justice for a chat about the case they ran on and I was very disappointed to find this didn't happen at all so it was a bit lonely it was it was very lonely and kind of in a way the only thing that alleviated the loneliness was to and fro in court um you know of interchange with members of the bar mostly yes in the court process yes yes it was when you were in the court of appeal I think you hadn't been there long that you were asked to do the BC inquire how did that come about who appointed you um well it was it was a government appointment somebody must have recommended you the um labor government had just taken over and they were very diffident about this inquiry because they were afraid it would look as though it was politically motivated because it was an inquiry into the previous conservative regime and specifically how the government had handled psse it wasn't kind of a scientific inquiry as to where it came from or yes and there were suggestions that there had been a cover up of the possible risk that it would be transmissible to humans because that would be damaging to our agricultural industry and so on and so forth did you want to take it on um not particularly I mean I I've never um rejected I think anything that was new it's always challenging and it's going to be different and did it turn out as you imagined no it didn't first of all my terms of reference were to report within a year which I'm quite sure they realized was impossible which it was and the brief was to look at 10 years of government activity involving the whole of the United Kingdom agricultural ministers Ministers of health because Bine products are Incorporated in medicines um and so I think we had as Witnesses at the end of the day probably 200 ex ministers I mean it was a massive task the documentation was so heavy that literally they had to survey the building in which the inquiry was being held to make sure that the structure would stand the weight of the documents so very quite a stressful ENT it was very I mean I think being under time constraints was the most stressful thing I had to kind of go crawling back to ask for more time twice yes but also the weight of the inquiry and the politics behind it as you alluded to did that not it stressful not the politics no I I don't think there were politics actually I think the government was straight in saying they wanted an inquiry into this um just the sheer weight and also the responsibility that does weigh on you is the reputation of individuals and in an inquiry when individuals are um maybe at fault and their suggestions of fault for the individual concerned it's an enormously stressful thing and they've got to be given a fair hearing and in the context of an inquiry like that it's very difficult to give sufficient time to appraise the conduct of individuals so you would worry about that when you went to bed at night I worried I what worried me I'm not quite sure I think just the general weight of the thing but it was a period of my life when I was really stressed I couldn't sleep I actually went to a hypnotist to try and see if he could hypnotize me into sleeping at night without any success it was very very stressful the actual conduct of the inquiry I enjoyed I think you said you you you almost had or your family worried that you might even be on the verge of a nervous breakdown no I think I probably was that that's a horrific thing and and do you think that this is a common experience of Judge four judges handling big inquiries of this nature well I don't know whether they would react as I did but I have no doubt whatsoever that handling a big inquiry puts enormous stress on you do you think the role of the media was an additional uh I don't pressure I don't think so at the end of the inquiry I had a press conference I remember Joshua Rosenberg always asked the first question he says how after all this time have you accomplished such an amazing whitewash oh goodness right anyway but but you presumably are happy with the outcome of it you didn't think it was a white wash it was fa was a white wash there was some criticism yes the one thing we criticized strongly was the public pronouncements that there is no evidence that BSE is transmissible to humans well there wasn't evidence that it wasn't um you know but it it it gives a kind of false sense of security here this you equate it or the man in the street equates it with meaning um on scientific appraisal there's no reason to worry yes well it was It was obviously a very very stressful experience did you ever consider resigning from the inquiry no I didn't um I learned afterwards that Bob Alexander had actually contemplated going to the Royal Chancellor and saying that he ought to stand me down gosh Bob Alexander being your good friend at the bar yeah yeah um and because he doing it as a friend you mean because he was so concerned about friendship yes so I mean obviously it was quite apparent to people to those who knew me that I under stress would you say that that whole experience was probably the worst thing you had to deal with in your time as a judge without hesitation yes it was gosh I mean there were aspects of it which were great fun we engaged about a team of about 50 mostly kind of Australians and new zealanders having a year off and earning a bit of money so they'd wander around in bare feet kind of analyzing the documents and so on I used to cycle over there and and leave my jacket there and one morning I arrived and realized to my horror that I'd actually taken my jacket away the previous evening and I hadn't got a jacket so we sat in shirt sleeves that day and everyone thought it was such a good idea from then on the inquiry sat in shirt sleeves how do you describe yourself as a a sentencer where did you put yourself on the spectrum of the hard and soft sentences very at the extreme end of the soft I would say um I always personally attended the s guidelines counsel I think it was then called CU I I felt very strongly about sentencing when I was Lord chief justice I spent a day um doing Anonymous community service I remember um yeah well it was a big the way I did it was a big mistake and I think my press office were open to criticism because I did it um with the um assistance of one particular journalist for the Observer and she had a a I remember a scoop and all the other newspapers I we were all Furious were Furious and therefore s condemned this as being just just um a publicity stunt publicity stunt yes I remember that if I done it without involving anyone then had a press conference afterwards saying look I've tried community service and this is what this is what it would have a much better it would indeed but presumably you were advised about that I was yeah so it wasn't entirely your although I can remember being annoyed about it myself yeah so and did that influence your views it reinforced them which were what that people custody should be a last absolute Last Resort a custody should be a last resort and B um custody should be for as short as possible really and it needs to do the purposes for which custody exists which is first of all punishment secondly deter and thirdly Rehabilitation now I believe that there's a limit to uh the Terrence that the length of sentences imposes I think if you if you think you may be caught then you're not going to commit the crime I think people commit crimes either without thinking about them under stress of emotion or having planned them carefully on the basis they're not going to get caught so obviously you need a reasonable length of time in prison for it to to be a deterrent sentence but adding another 5 years I don't think it's going to make much difference from the point of view of deterrence do do you think that the Judiciary is out of step with the public in in views about sentencing we've we've had a run of quite liberal senior judges yes um well you say quite liberal by comparison to what is the question I suppose going back 50 years I hanging we don't have we don't have hanging but that that was a political matter I don't know I suspect very few High Court judges Eno enjoyed sentencing people to death do you think that the judges of a previous generation were tougher um not in the length of sentences but the the problem with sentencing is that in so far as punishment is concerned there is no absolute standard it's a very much a subjective matter subjective on the part of the sentencer on the part of the public but where the public are actually consulted and given a detailed scenario they tend to be much more lenient than you would expect on sentencing yes and if if the public were explained just how much it costs to keep an individual in prison money that could be used for the Health Service or education um then I think they might have second thoughts about the cry lock them up for longer it's a problem though isn't it because sentencing is the most public face of the Judiciary that's where the public from that the public formed their views of the Judiciary so does it bring the Judiciary into disrepute I think at the time you were Lord chief justice there was a bit of a tabloid campaign over soft sentencing you were criticized also by some judges for not standing up for them sufficiently as they saw it do you remember that um I may well have been because there was one incident when I was actually a broad on holiday when if I'd been properly switched on I would have either probably not come back but made some pronouncement from wherever I was in C or whatever that's correct and if I was criticized about that I was probably rightly criticized I think with hindsight you know I I should have been more astute to react well I I don't know I mean would do you think that looking at sentencing now it's gone ratcheting up far too much I mean do we look up too many people I think we do and for too long I think we do and the the trouble is I mean one's got to have some kind of compromise in life it is terribly expensive locking people up and if you were to reduce the length of sentences overall but spend what you save in improving rehabilitation in prison um you know a a system of imprisonment which gives proper resourcing to Rehabilitation is very good a system which doesn't and locks people up like animals in cages for 23 hours out to 24 is basically inhumane do we have a a good system no I don't think we do I think we lock people up for far too long if you read any report on conditions in prison they're always highly critical and we don't we don't spend enough on facilities in prisons or indeed in a lot of other places as we're seeing at the moment but money you spend locking people up when they're not at danger when they've been in prison for some years by way of punishment seems to me is simply wasted expenditure well given a a tight budget for the public sector against health education all those things so that's really what we should be doing you you would argue you I would love I mean if I were prime minister I would it would be politically unacceptable query saying we really need to give an amnesty and sweep out to the prison a lot of old men they are men who are clogging out the prison living there um you know at enormous cost securing them when they could be living in society quietly at their own expense you would do that I would I would that would be a bold step I think I probably would yes I feel quite strongly about it I'm not a political animal I think sunak is doing quite a good job in difficult circumstances but when he produces a a a kind of Catchphrase we're going to after the let be case life is going to mean life it's a sound but it's it's complete well if he's going to remove the residual discretion which keeps us compliant with strasburg's view of life not being inevitably life if he's going to change that simply for electioneering I think that's lamentable and it would mean going against the convention I suppose the I logic of it would have to pull out from we we go as far as you possibly could um in locking people up for life to satisfy the convention there is a chance with change of circumstances that you would be released even if your sentence of life means life but it's going to be very rare that it happens so you're saying and I as people know I'm sure the whole life tariff it it in practice it probably does mean that but there's always the possibility of review there always should be there has has to be under the convention yeah and if if the government were to end that judges would would be very dismayed because they would lose that discre think any thinking person would be dismayed if it meant we broke our ties with Strasburg because of this because Strasburg feels strongly about it they do and it would probably mean pulling up from the convention well I it might logically do logically I think it would and ministers have floated that yeah well I mean um the convention isn't always popular with ministers to put it mildly no but you were you're a supporter of the Human Rights Act and the convention yes I am but we signed out to the convention not because we thought what needed to put our own house in order but in order to support an international court that would have an international jurisdiction um particularly for other countries where human rights were not as respected as they are in this country we have we have had more populist leanings in the last two or three administrations in this country and there have been mutterings about discarding the convention do you think that would be a bad mistake I think it would be a very bad mistake and and again you say posturings and people in this country don't really or a lot of people perhaps understandably draw a distinction between the European Court of Human Rights and the EU they think it's all part of the EU it's not yes I think do not think that the whole brexit um development has has sort of fired out people's antipathy to Europe generally and the convention in the court as well as to the EU stimulated yeah I'm not going to quite a political questions it the effect of brexit in faring up I'm not sure that brexit has fared up I think it might have damped down a bit but just just before I I did want to ask you and I would like we've leading on quite well to the whole thing of the rule of law and the attitude of ministers but just on the point about the public and sentencing if there's always going to be this disparity and view because the public don't understand and they do alter their view as you've said surveys show when they know the circumstances how can that that Gap be bridged how can the Judiciary not always be seen to be slightly out of step with what people think is right it's it's well first of all I'm not sure that people think that the Judiciary out of step on sentencing you get the occasional what appears to be apparent lenient sentence which of course the media jump on because they very good copy but by and large I don't think the Judiciary are criticized for being over lenient on sentencing sentencing remarks which are now broadcast I think that's a good development because people can then begin to understand what goes into a sentence but the cases that have been being selected tend to be cases where the sentence is going to be heavy you're not yet getting broadcast uh and of course who knows in advance what the judge is going to say but it would be helpful if there were the occasional sentence that was broadcast where the judge gave what might have appeared to be a lenient sentence explaining why he or she was doing so it has been a good development cameras of course and I think it will be extended do do you not imagine it will will be extended I I mean I've been by and large been in favor of cameras in the courts in the Supreme Court we introduced you you pioneered it really there didn't you Cam's the first in all our courts in the Supreme Court when you were there in charge what about the Supreme Court then since you've mentioned it I mean what do you think your achievements were there and what were the challenges of it the Supreme Court was in a way all about educating the public in this country and in indeed abroad as to the function of our final court of appeal because um all right in theory the law Lords were quite contrary to the separation of powers in practice they work pretty well as in an independent final court of appeal but Trum persuad that to the general public what they were doing or why they were in the House of Lords um almost impossible and so if you T to remember the public about a law Lord they'd have not the slightest concept of the real ity of the position so taking them out of parliament into a supreme court focused attention on them as a court and the Supreme Court in this country has had much more I think attention and publicity uh in educating the public about it has made it made good very good constitutional sense didn't it I think it did yes and help the image of the Judiciary along the way I think so were there any any particular cases that you can single out that you feel made uh quite an impact that you were particularly proud of or glad that the decision was made on your watch in the Supreme Court there's an interesting area uh in relation to Strasburg and there was a particular I mean there was a lot of antipathy to Strasburg there's a risk that we would pull out because Strasburg would be seen to be interfering with what should really be our domestic concern and there was one case uh where a man been convicted on hearsay evidence and stasbor said that was contrary to the rights of a fair trial that you a conviction should be largely based upon hearsay evidence um and that created a a lot of disart in this jurisdiction because we have a lot of safeguards evidentially safeguards um and so I I wrote a judgment in a case called horn where we declined to follow Strasburg and I it took a lot of writing that particular case trying to explain to stasbor that there are circumstances in which we might decide that stasbor hadn't fully appreciated how things work in this country that was quite important asserting yourself it did actually lead Strasburg in the next case to say we accept actually we got it wrong as far as this was concerned and I think they they did they not subsequently adopt a sort of slightly more hands-off approach they were more there was differential to to the rulings of our courts I don't think that was because of hn Castle I mean h Castle had an effect on that area of the law so far as stasbor were concerned and and resulted in stasbor adopting an approach which was acceptable if they had refused to then I think that might well have led to you know real um pressure out of stb so would do you think the balance now looking at the Supreme Court in Strasburg is about right in terms of I decides what I think it is um Strasburg very seldom rules against this country um I I think we probably have the best record at Strasburg and we had a similar thing with the whole life tariffs as well yes where I think we kept our discretion yes yes and um I hope we will [Music] continue as you look back and you see how things have changed and I I mentioned you know perhaps we've had a more more of a populist clim CL in recent years does it worry you the attitude we've had among ministers to the rule of law under some administrations yes it does um the rule of law is something that's not all that easy to to appreciate you know you academic you can understand what it is but it's almost like a religion the rule of law it gets into your bones if you practice law and the importance of it and if you haven't had that experience of it maybe not even of thinking about it as some Lord chancellors now haven't I'm not going to make any comment about some Lord chancellors but you know it's not a natural rule that you kind of ingrain into you at school or University or whatever you you need to understand and think about it in order to appreciate just how important it is there was a a um Chief J of one of the Australian States who used to invite new members of parliament to come to a little talk he would give about the importance of the rule of La I think that sounds a very good idea I think it' be a very good idea because you can't BL I don't think you can blame people for not appreciating just how important it is but a natural reaction to judges frustrating what you're trying to do by way of s sensible Administration um you know it can be at odds with an appreciation of the importance of the rule of law absolutely I mean do think in recent years we've seen from both Law Officers politicians as you say maybe not through ignorance or whatever other reason have they had more of a disregard that is a worry disregard for the rule of law I think the answer to that is yes and if you ask why I think one very powerful reason is that in the old days the Lord Chancellor would uphold the rule of laww he would see it as his job to make sure that his colleagues appreciated the importance of the rule of law and he would be a man of great standing the role of La Chancellor passed people of of high Renown who are not looking for any political advancement and who by and large would have the interests of the the practicing lawyers the bar in particular the judges and the rule of law as priority number one and we certainly don't have that now do you think the Lord Chancellor should be a lawyer yes I do although we've had Michael Gove he was very good he was lawy you you can't lay down black and white rules but rarely the Lord Johnson need needs to be somebody who has lived in an environment where the rule of law is important and without that it's it's it's a threat is it do you think to our Constitution it's it's a weakness I think because if you if you're Lord Chancellor now and you are politically ambitious um you know there's a disincentive to say to the Prime Minister hey prime minister you can't do that that that's contrary to the rule of law which they don't always do I'm not privy to what they say to the law but I suspect you're right sorry to the Prime Minister you're right looking at the balance of power then between the just in conclusion looking at the balance of power between the executive the Judiciary and the legislature do you think it's shifted in it in the last 20 years and do you think the Judiciary is in a weaker position perhaps since the changes the reforms or not I think it I think it has shifted a bit or maybe quite a lot um there's always likely to be a tension between the administration and the Judiciary but as far as the running of the courts is concerned um I think when we had an old-fashioned Lord Chancellor the voice of the judges would carry more weight than it does now in issues about resourcing and so on do you think judges have had to become more political I don't think judges are have become more political no but I think maybe they feel more under the domination of the executive than they used to so far as running their judicial lives are concerned looking back at since the reforms took place do you think the Judiciary is in Fairly good heart I mean it's it's still a strong voice in the Constitution despite the um constraints you've just outlined about budgets and so on and being slightly more subservient to the executive in that regard generally do you think the three arms work reasonably well or do you think Parliament has become weer or no I think they work reasonably well um there is a challenge I think to our Constitution which is that running the country technically is so complex now that the idea that you will have laws properly debated in the House of Commons um is no longer really realistic a a and Henry the e8th Clauses are almost inescapable to give government the flexibility it's going to need to run the country uh so that's a that's a dent in the Democratic process really it's a deficit Now isn't it it's a real problem I think in our system which assumes that all legislation is going to be carefully considered and the House of Lords is a vital body in at least making sure that there's a pretty good degree of scrutiny of legislation but even the House of Lords can't do the whole job there's and nobody could I think there's inevitably got to be more delegation of power it's given an increased and enhanced role to retire judges in the House of Lords hasn't it it has it has but I mean I think this is a shift in reality of how government runs a country um and it's not obvious what the answer to it [Music] is this podcast was brought to you by the University of law subscribe now to make sure you don't miss the next episode [Music]

Channel: The University of Law

Views: 2,891

Keywords: The University of Law Judges Series, Lord Phillips interview, ULaw Lord Phillips podcast, The Judges, Lord Phillips

Id: M8pIf59AJBY

Length: 45min 11sec (2711 seconds)

Published: Wed Jan 10 2024