Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:36:54.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Brenda Hale
Brenda Hale*
Affiliation:
House of Lords
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Government's Consultation Paper does not have a question mark in its title. It does not purport to be a serious discussion of the role of a Supreme Court in a democracy. This is scarcely to be expected of such a document or its respondents, so I propose to respond in its own terms rather than on the loftier plane usually adopted by contributors to this journal. More unexpectedly, the Consultation Paper does not even put forward a serious set of options to consider. At the Law Commission, we always had (at least a metaphorical) question mark in our title because we almost always put forward two options which do not appear in this consultation: the ‘do nothing’ and the ‘let’s abolish it' options. Both have a lot to be said for them here.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 1-2 , March 2004 , pp. 36 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Department for Constitutional Affairs Constitutional Reform: a Supreme Court, for the United Kingdom CP 11/03, July 2003 (‘CP’).

2. Cf President Aharon Barak ‘Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy’ (2002) 116 Harv LR 19 and the numerous sources cited there.

3. Of which I was a member from 1 May 1984 to 31 December 1993.

4. CP, n 1 above, para 34; but the CP makes clear that they are still much in demand for chairing important committees and similar work.

5. [2003] UKHL 34; [2003] ICR 937.

6. CP, n 1 above, paras 53–56.

7. Access to Justice Act 1999, s 55(1). Only the Court of Appeal can grant such permission.

8. [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] I AC 800.

9. CP, n 1 above, para 58.

10. CP, n 1 above, para 59.

11. CP, n 1 above, paras 19–21.

12. [2000] 2 AC 59; 2000 SC (HL) 1. For a typically trenchant Scottish attack on Lord Steyn's ‘person on the underground’ test, see Professor J Thomson ‘Abandoning the law of delict’ (2000) 6 SLT 43–45.

13. Thus, eg, the House of Lords were not able to express their opinions on the difficult issues raised by the case of the conjoined twins (Re A (children) (conjoined twins) [2000] 4 All ER 961), surely one of the most important ever to have reached the courts.

14. Law Commissions Act 1965, s 3(1).

15. CP, n 1 above, para 2.

16. Although the CP, n 1 above, para 37, touches on whether those who have reached the very top of the judging profession should continue to be appointed to the House.

17. CP, n 1 above, para 4.

18. CP, n 1 above, para 3.

19. The Lord Chancellor's speech writers are well qualified to take their line from the former permanent secretary, Sir Claud Shuster, in a 1943 memorandum cited by R Stevens The Independence of the Judiciary: the View from the Lord Chancellor's Office (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) p 3; see also R Stevens The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) p 91.

20. Lord Steyn ‘The Case for a Supreme Court’ (2002) 118 LQR 382.

21. CP, n 1 above, para 61.

22. A good recent example is Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings Ltd v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Co Ltd [2003] UKHL 48.

23. CP, n 1 above, para 46.

24. R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte [2000] 1 AC 61 at 119, 147.

25. CP, n 1 above, para 52.

26. There is an alarming account of the extent to which Senate confirmation hearings have become politicised around the issue of abortion in J Toobin ‘Advice and Dissent: The fight over the President's judicial nominations’The New Yorker, 26 May 2003, p42.

27. Department for Constitutional Affairs Constitutional reform: a new way of appointing judges CP 10103, July 2003.

28. CP 10/03, n 21 above, para 43.

29. CP 10/03, n 21 above, para 45.

30. CP 10/03, n 21 above, para 38.

31. H Kennedy Eve was Framed: Women and British Justice (1993) p 267. The Commission for Judicial Appointments also refers to the ‘cloning effect’ in its Annual Report (2003) para 4.31.

32. B Hale ‘Equality in the Judiciary: A Tale of Two Continents’ 10th Pilgrim Fathers' Lecture, 24 October 2003.

33. Barak, n 2 above, at 28–29.

34. Stevens (2002), n 19 above, p 152.

35. 347 US 483 (1955).

36. N Johnson Reshaping the British Constitution (forthcoming) ch 11.