Rule of Law: The state should govern its citizens in accordance to it’s set rules. Judicial Review: When the High Court oversees the decision of bodies to check whether they had the power to make that decision. Declaration of incompatibility: Issued under s4 HRA 1998-gives judges the power to question the compatibility of legislation with human rights. The declaration is sent to parliament, it does not allow judges to strike out laws. Separation of Powers: state power is divided into 3: the executive (government) judicial and the legislative. Each power should be exercised by different bodies/people. Lay: A non legally qualified person Oxbridge: Oxford and Cambridge university Secret soundings: the old appointment system whereby information on a potential judge would be gathered informally from leading barristers and judges. Privy council: The final appeal court for the commonwealth countries. House of Lords: The name of the upper house of parliament (not to be confused with the House of Lords court that was replaced by the Supreme Court).

It is very important to the rule of law that judiciary are independent. Judges have a key role in controlling the exercise of power by the state through: Judicial Review Human Rights Act 1998 (s.4 declaration of incompatibility) A and X and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)

Head of the Judiciary-President of the Courts of England and Wales (Lord Chief Justice) Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Most Senior Judges-Justice of the Supreme Court and Privy Council (Constitutional Reform Act 2005 replaced the HoL with the Supreme Court) Court of Appeal-37 judges Lord and Lady justices of Appeal, Head of Criminal Division-Lord Chief Justice-Master of the Rolls High Court-107 full Time Judges Circuit Judges-Crown Court and County Court District Judges – Crown Court District Judges-Magistrates Court Recorder (part time) – County Court and Crown Court

This role has existed for over 1,400 years, but recently the role has been seen as a conflict with the doctrine of the separation of powers. In 2003 the government announced the intention to abolish the role but this has not happened. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has maintained the role but restricted the powers of the Lord Chancellor, see next slide....

Previously the role of the Lord Chancellor did not comply with the doctrine of the separation of powers. Why? As a member of the Cabinet (decision making body of the Prime Minister and government ministers) the Lord Chancellor was a member of the judiciary and the executive bodies This has now been amended by the new Act.

Different countries have different way of selecting and appointing judges; the process has been changed in the UK to make it fairer:

Judicial Appointment Commission: 14 members 5 lay people 5 judges 2 legal professionals 1lay magistrate 1 tribunal member Appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – eligibility to become a judge no longer based on numbers of years of rights of audience, but now on number of years post qualification experience.

One of the main criticisms of the judiciary is the lack of diversity in the make up of it CRA 2005 and the new appointment procedure is looking to change this But…

Training Judges receive minimal formal training, what they do receive is organised by the Judicial Studies Board and includes: One-week training course One-week sitting alongside an experienced judge Refresher course, seminars and specialist training when required.

Dismissal 1.Dismissal (applies to High Court Judges and above)- Act of Settlement 1701, Courts Act 1971 and Constitutional Reform Act Suspension from Office-disciplinary procedures set up by the Constitutional Reform Act Resignation 4.Retirement-usually at 70 5.Removal due to infirmity. Promotion There is no formal system of the promotion of judges as it is thought the desire for promotion could influence their decision making. Any promotion is dealt with in the same way as the initial appointment process through the Judicial Appointments Commission.

The independence of judges is extremely important. Independence is required for them to be impartial and so allow a fair trail, as a result, Judges should...

Be independent from Executives, interest groups and litigants Have an independent pay review Have no other paid profession Cannot sit on a board with personal interest Re Pinochet Urgarte (1999)

However, there are threats to judges independence... Supremacy of Parliament: Judges have to do what they are told to do by Parliament. Judges have been seen to show political bias: Mcllkenny v chief Constable of the West Midlands (1980) R v Ponting (1985) Some cases demonstrate right-wing political bias: Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1982) Council of Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Services (1984) Bias against women attitudes towards women by some judges are out of date and stereotypical. This is of particular concern in cases involving sexual offences.

Mostly white, male attended private school and Oxbridge Limited Training Lack of specialisation

Further reforms of the appointment process are necessary to remove the government from the appointment process (to stop the judiciary and the executive roles from conflicting). Increasing training. Improvements in the organisation of court hours to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 As we said, independence is important and so it was necessary to remove the House of Lords Court so that there was complete separation between the senior judges and the Upper House of Parliament (which is also called the House of Lords). This way, the Law Lords can be completely independent when removed from the legislature. In 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords into their own building, and sat in the Supreme Court instead (the highest appeal Court in the UK). The Supreme Court is very important-its decisions effect society and shape the working law.

S judges appointed by the Queen on recommendation of the Prime Minister, who has been notified by the Lord Chancellor after a selection made by a commission, and these numbers can be increased. The senior Lord of Appeal is President of the Court. To qualify for appointment to the Supreme Court a judge must have held high judicial office for at least 2 years. S25 also allows the appointment of a qualifying practitioner for at least 15 years, (Court of Appeal or in the House of Lords, before the Supreme Court).