Irvine 'should not choose judges'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Lord Irvine of Lairg should be stripped of his powers to appoint High Court judges and Queen's Counsel, an inquiry commissioned by the Bar Council has concluded.
The report represents a serious blow to the Lord Chancellor, who until now has been able to rely on the support of the barristers' profession in his refusal to bow to calls for the reform of his office or the dilution of his powers of patronage. The Bar's report concluded that it was "politically unacceptable" for a member of the Government to continue to appoint high-ranking judges. The same reason is given for ending Lord Irvine's right to promote about 100 barristers to the rank of Queen's Counsel (QC) each year.
A High Court judge was attacked by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, last month for overturning government policy aimed at stopping benefits for asylum-seekers who made late claims. No 10 later issued veiled threats to bring in laws to curb the powers of the judiciary, prompting calls for the Lord Chancellor to intervene and defend the judges.
The report, produced by a working party headed by Sir Iain Glidewell, a former lord justice of appeal, said: "There is a particular need for the High Court judge to be protected by constitutional safeguards from the risk ... that his or her independence might be threatened by the executive." It added: "The High Court judge is called upon to spend a significant and increasing amount of his or her time making decisions in the name of the public, frequently adjudicating on the actions of ministers and other public bodies."
Sir Iain recommended that an independent High Court appointments board take over the Lord Chancellor's role. He also called for an end of the so-called "tap on the shoulder" system for appointing High Court judges. "We do not consider that the current processes can be seen to be wholly satisfactory for the 21st century," he said.
The report also proposed that, whilerecommendations for QC candidates should continue formally to emanate from the Lord Chancellor, officials concerned with the appointment process should report to an independent panel.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments