Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are the most senior judges who are appointed from among the Lords Justice of Appeal, yet again it is possible for an advocate with 11 years experience to be appointed straight to this position. They are appointed by the Crown on Recommendation of the Prime Minister. After Lords of Appeal is the Master of the Rolls who is the Head of Court of Appeal in the Civil Division. This judge is selected from a list of solicitors who are entitled to practice by invitation.
Although most judges retire at the age of 70, district, part-time and circuit judges can be relieved of their position by the Lord Chancellor for misbehaviour and/or incapacity.
However, High Court justices, Lords Justice of Appeal and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, as well as the Master of Rolls can only be removed from office by the request of both Houses of Parliament.
- Judges aren’t elected so they can’t be voted out.
- The security of tenure protects superior judges from the threat of removal.
Of Judges consists of the Judicial Studies Board institution which was set up in 1979 and is observed to determine the principles on which judicial studies should be planned and to consider the proposed forms of the study programmes and to also approve them in procedure. There are five committees responsible for carrying out the work of Judicial Studies Board these are criminal, family jurisdictions, civil; magistrates and tribunals training of full or part-time judiciary. Judges receive very little training as they are probably experienced lawyers but do not have the abilities and qualities suggested for a judge and therefore are not enabled to undertake the requirements.
This training is targeted at the lower end of the judicial scale. Once a judge has been appointed they take a one week course of training and are then contracted to work shadow an experienced judge for a short period of one week to learn the basic concepts of the role of a judge. During their training judge’s sit to hear cases. There are also one-day courses available.
In 1993 the Runciman Commission on Criminal Justice advised a refresher course every two years. Critics point out training for judges is too short. Judges will be experienced as lawyers but not intensifying up the jury or sentencing. High Court Judges do not have compulsory training as they are invited to attend courses run by the Judicial Studies Board.
The judicial studies board is set by Lord Justice Henry who provides new training for all new judges. The training has been dealing with the use of ICT, which is said to be important by Lord Woolf to run civil courts efficiently and to get judges to implement the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates the conviction of Human Rights into English law. Under this board Judges receive training in race and gender equality.
High judges for how to improve have made the following recommendations. Helena Kennedy suggests that judges would benefit from sabbaticals giving them time to study the good practices of judges in other countries. Judge Pickles and Lord Scarman believe more training is needed in sociology, psychology, penology and criminology and to learn more about law criminals dealt with by other legal systems.
Majority of judges perform a number of important functions that include:
- Supervising the conduct of the trial
- Deciding questions of law that arise during the trial
- Deciding questions of law that arise during the trial
- In most civil cases, deciding questions of fact, reaching a verdict and awards a verdict.
- In serious criminal trials a judge amounts up the evidence to the jury and directs them as law they reach their verdict, the judge passes the sentence.
- Judges in superior courts interpret and apply both statute and common law.
No one expects judges to be perfect, that’s why there are other methods to hold judges accountable. Rulings can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Laws can be changed and wrongdoing and ethnical violations can be punished. In most states, judges must stand for re-election. “Judicial independence is the judges right to do the right thing believing it to be the right thing, to do the wrong thing.”
An independent judiciary is where all judges need to be free from bias and only be involved in the judiciary Arm of the State. This is because their decisions need to be fair from political bias. Judges must base their decisions without bias and have let their own beliefs, politics and opinions let them sway their decisions. Judges should not be involved in any other Arm of State.
Is the separation of powers, which puts forward that judges should be independent from the executive and legislative arms of the government so that they are not pressurised when making official decisions. Judges are free to decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law. Judges are purified from political pressure, legislative pressure, special interest pressure, media pressure, public pressure, financial pressure or even personal pressure.
There are two types of independence formal and informal. Starting with formal independence which includes:
- Judges having a financial independence as their salaries and pension paid by an independent review body
- Judges in the high court, court of appeal and House of Lords cannot be dismissed by the government
- Judges should not take part in any other business or hold or the paid appointment or another profession whilst working in the office
- Judges should disqualify themselves from any cases they believe that can be biased or have great interesting. This emphasizes the importance of appearances.
- Judges cannot be sued for acts done within jurisdiction. They should not be deterred in the performance of their duties by the threat of litigation.
The informal independence of judiciary is less certain from other branches of the state.
Evidence of an independence judiciary comes from phrases like judges are not being allowed to be involved in any political party. This is the first factor that keeps judges away from political bias. Another point that shows we have an independent judiciary in the fact that judges are difficult to remove from office. Therefore this means that judges know they have a stable future and are not afraid of exposing their elections even they do go against the Government. This means that the judiciary is independent.
There have been many cases reported where judges have made decisions on cases that have been completely against the government, which is strong evidence to suggest that the judiciary is independent, also, more of evidence is that the judiciary is financially independent because judges are paid a decent wage which won’t make them liable or bribery.
On the other hand, there is one strong argument that suggests that we do not have an independent judiciary, and this is the fact that the Lord Chancellor is involved in all 3 states of law. Being the Head judge and the one who appoints all other judges, if he is involved in the political sides of law, then there is little doubt that the Lord Chancellor allows his political views to influence his decisions over who he does and does not appoint as a judge, and who he removes from office even.
Independence from the legislature- full time judges are not allowed to be House of Commons as they do not get involved in the law and make functions of parliament. Law Lords who sit in the House of Lords do not take part in political debates. Judges make laws through the doctrine of judicial precedent.
Independence from the executive- superior judges cannot be dismissed by the government. However the appointment of judges is not independent from the executive as the Lord Chancellor (Member of the government). Superior judges can be sacked by the agreement of the House of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor for incapacity or misbehaviour can sack inferior judges.
Freedom of pressure-when judges are at work they are protected from outside pressure. For instance
- Financial independence, this is where judges are paid out of the fund so that payment is made without the need for parliaments authorization.
- Judges are not sued for actions taken or decisions made in the course of their work provided it is in ‘good faith’
- The security of tenure of superior judges protects them from the threat of removal.
Professor Griffiths believes that judges are too pro-establishment and conservative when dealing with major issues in the court. For example issues related to industrial relations, political protest, race relations, government secrecy, police powers and moral behaviour. This is shown in the case decisions of the R.V. Brown.
The Lord Chancellor-is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the separation of powers. Lord Chancellor is appointed and can be dismissed by the Prime Minister. He is only Lord Chancellor while the government is in power. He plays role in three arms of the state as he is
- The speaker of the House of Lords when sitting in its legislative capacity.
- A member of the Labour cabinet (the executive i.e. government)
- A judge in the House of Lords, head of the chancery in the high court and acts as a judge in both of the courts
Lord Irvine’s independence has been questioned previously and has asked for donations for the Labour Party’s election campaign for lawyers that he has the power to promote to Queen’s Council and the judiciary.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that we do have an independent judiciary with sufficient evidence to support this claim, but I don’t think we have a completely independent judiciary as there is a large influence of politics on the Lord Chancellor who appoints all judges to carry out justice.
Judicial independence is an important issue and is rising-
- Special interests are spending millions to influence decisions and elections to serve their narrow interests, not the public interest.
- The costs of judicial campaigns are targeted, forcing judges to raise like politicians and people believe that justice is for sale.
- Misleading and opponent attacks on judge’s decisions are bringing politicians to the courtroom.
- Say they don’t have enough information to protect the court to make important decisions about their lives.
