Hailing Supreme
In 2007, Gordon Brown announced a programme of constitutional reform with the aim of rebuilding national consensus and international trust. This initiative, however, had already begun under Tony Blair as seen by the creation of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The latter has lead to the creation of a UK Supreme Court which should be completed by October of this year.
According to the July 2003 Department of Constitutional Affairs Consultation Paper, Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom CP 11/03’, the creation of the court was necessary as the current system raised “questions about whether there is any longer sufficient transparency of independence from the executive and legislature to give people the assurance to which they are entitled about the independence of the Judiciary.” This quote clearly refers to the UK’s alleged current violation of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, suggesting that this new court is a solution to these problems. The Supreme Court will remove the law lords from the House of Lords and thereby “separate” the legislature and executive from the Judiciary. While the new court will hit Gordon Brown’s target of rebuilding trust, is that all the new court is for? Is it simply a very expensive election tool or will it truly improve the English legal system? While the judiciary, legislature and executive may be physically apart, will the branches be truly separated?
The Supreme Court will have the original jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and will completely replace it’s judicial capacity, returning it to a purely legislative chamber. This will clearly have an enormous effect on the UK Constitution by severing the ties between the legislative and judiciary. However, the location of the Supreme Court suggests that the two branches are not yet ready to say bye-bye.
The new location at Middlesex Guildhall a Grade 2 listed neo-gothic building on Parliament Square –has outraged conservation group SAVE Britain’s Heritage. According to their Secretary, Adam Wilkinson, “the plans are doing an enormous amount of damage to an extremely fine interior…if this wasn’t going to be a Supreme Court there is no way that it would get planning permission”. The other concerning factor is that it is not necessary to destroy a Grade 2 building, as the original choice of location had been Somerset House on the Strand, which is “at the heart of the legal campus, you wouldn’t have had to make such radical alterations and it’s less damaging in terms of the historic fabric.” So why Middlesex Guildhall? Rabinder Singh QC of Matrix Chambers confirms that “many people in the legal profession were hoping it might be closer to the Royal Courts of Justice” but also agrees that there is a “certain symmetry” in having the Supreme Court on the same square as Parliament and many other Whitehall Ministries.
I, on the other hand, find myself coming to different conclusions. The Government is spending between £37million and £57million on renovating a Grade 2 building to separate the judiciary and legislature only to place the judiciary in the immediate vicinity of Parliament.
While the law lords are removed from the House of Lords, this is not going to be the only change made to the composition. The law lords currently have a staff of one office manager, six secretaries and four legal assistants with a budget of £200,000, excluding judicial salaries. However, the Ministry of Justice launched an advertising campaign in October 2008 to find a Chief Executive for the Supreme Court with a salary of up to £100,000. This Chief Executive will have 50 staff and a budget of £12million, a far cry from the meagre resources of the law lords. However, it must be noted that the new Chief Executive will do the exact same job as the current Law Lords. The cost of moving the Supreme Court has been justified by Jonathon Fisher QC of 23 Essex Street Chambers by saying that “if we are going to have a Supreme Court of standing…we have to have a building commensurate to its status.” But what about the sixty times increase in costs for the staff? With no explanation given by anyone as to why the budget has increased by such an amount, one can only assume as to its purpose. Personally, I find a deep resonance with Gordon Brown’s aim of “rebuilding” trust and the connotation that a big budget and staff means a lot of profound work is being done to improve our legal system.
It must not be forgotten that the US made a very similar move to this over 70 years ago. In 1935, the US Supreme Court moved out of the US Congress and into No 1, First Street NE, Washington DC. The new 92 foot high Court was built in three years using quarried marble from Italy and cost nearly $10Million, but not all US Justices supported the move calling it “almost bombastically pretentious”. In the UK, the new Court has also been met with contempt from the law lords as, back in 2003, only four of them had supported the idea. Now they all claim to back the project, or are reconciled to it, however, Wilkinson claims that most law lords “don’t want to be there” and would either prefer a purpose built site or to remain in the House of Lords. Others, particularly the Conservative Party say that the plan for Supreme Court should be dropped altogether. Conservative Peer Baroness Seccombe declared the Supreme Court to be an expensive “folly” and said that the court would become known as “Falconer Towers” (after the ex Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC). Nonetheless, the majority view of the Bar is that the Supreme Court is a step forward. Michael Fordham QC says that the Supreme Court is “very long overdue” and “it’s not just a matter of form or window-dressing. It reflects the extremely important role that the court has to play.” The negative views of different Peers and the Conservative Party is inevitable: the House of Lords do not want to relinquish the fusion of the legislature and judiciary and the Conservatives want to down trod anything Labour do. The positive response from the Bar, on the other hand, suggests that the court will have a positive effect in terms of the UK legal system.
The new Supreme Court will bring about great change to the UK in terms of separating the legislature and judiciary, however, I remained unconvinced by the costs of staff and their budget and the positioning of the court. It seems to me that the enormous budget is a façade created for the benefit of the public’s conscience and the use of Middlesex Guildhall is to ensure that the judiciary, although independent, is still under Parliament’s watchful eye. Given the location of the Supreme Court, space could well be a sought after commodity if Parliament decides to park its tanks on the judiciary’s lawn or visa-versa.
According to the July 2003 Department of Constitutional Affairs Consultation Paper, Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom CP 11/03’, the creation of the court was necessary as the current system raised “questions about whether there is any longer sufficient transparency of independence from the executive and legislature to give people the assurance to which they are entitled about the independence of the Judiciary.” This quote clearly refers to the UK’s alleged current violation of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, suggesting that this new court is a solution to these problems. The Supreme Court will remove the law lords from the House of Lords and thereby “separate” the legislature and executive from the Judiciary. While the new court will hit Gordon Brown’s target of rebuilding trust, is that all the new court is for? Is it simply a very expensive election tool or will it truly improve the English legal system? While the judiciary, legislature and executive may be physically apart, will the branches be truly separated?
The Supreme Court will have the original jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and will completely replace it’s judicial capacity, returning it to a purely legislative chamber. This will clearly have an enormous effect on the UK Constitution by severing the ties between the legislative and judiciary. However, the location of the Supreme Court suggests that the two branches are not yet ready to say bye-bye.
The new location at Middlesex Guildhall a Grade 2 listed neo-gothic building on Parliament Square –has outraged conservation group SAVE Britain’s Heritage. According to their Secretary, Adam Wilkinson, “the plans are doing an enormous amount of damage to an extremely fine interior…if this wasn’t going to be a Supreme Court there is no way that it would get planning permission”. The other concerning factor is that it is not necessary to destroy a Grade 2 building, as the original choice of location had been Somerset House on the Strand, which is “at the heart of the legal campus, you wouldn’t have had to make such radical alterations and it’s less damaging in terms of the historic fabric.” So why Middlesex Guildhall? Rabinder Singh QC of Matrix Chambers confirms that “many people in the legal profession were hoping it might be closer to the Royal Courts of Justice” but also agrees that there is a “certain symmetry” in having the Supreme Court on the same square as Parliament and many other Whitehall Ministries.
I, on the other hand, find myself coming to different conclusions. The Government is spending between £37million and £57million on renovating a Grade 2 building to separate the judiciary and legislature only to place the judiciary in the immediate vicinity of Parliament.
While the law lords are removed from the House of Lords, this is not going to be the only change made to the composition. The law lords currently have a staff of one office manager, six secretaries and four legal assistants with a budget of £200,000, excluding judicial salaries. However, the Ministry of Justice launched an advertising campaign in October 2008 to find a Chief Executive for the Supreme Court with a salary of up to £100,000. This Chief Executive will have 50 staff and a budget of £12million, a far cry from the meagre resources of the law lords. However, it must be noted that the new Chief Executive will do the exact same job as the current Law Lords. The cost of moving the Supreme Court has been justified by Jonathon Fisher QC of 23 Essex Street Chambers by saying that “if we are going to have a Supreme Court of standing…we have to have a building commensurate to its status.” But what about the sixty times increase in costs for the staff? With no explanation given by anyone as to why the budget has increased by such an amount, one can only assume as to its purpose. Personally, I find a deep resonance with Gordon Brown’s aim of “rebuilding” trust and the connotation that a big budget and staff means a lot of profound work is being done to improve our legal system.
It must not be forgotten that the US made a very similar move to this over 70 years ago. In 1935, the US Supreme Court moved out of the US Congress and into No 1, First Street NE, Washington DC. The new 92 foot high Court was built in three years using quarried marble from Italy and cost nearly $10Million, but not all US Justices supported the move calling it “almost bombastically pretentious”. In the UK, the new Court has also been met with contempt from the law lords as, back in 2003, only four of them had supported the idea. Now they all claim to back the project, or are reconciled to it, however, Wilkinson claims that most law lords “don’t want to be there” and would either prefer a purpose built site or to remain in the House of Lords. Others, particularly the Conservative Party say that the plan for Supreme Court should be dropped altogether. Conservative Peer Baroness Seccombe declared the Supreme Court to be an expensive “folly” and said that the court would become known as “Falconer Towers” (after the ex Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, QC). Nonetheless, the majority view of the Bar is that the Supreme Court is a step forward. Michael Fordham QC says that the Supreme Court is “very long overdue” and “it’s not just a matter of form or window-dressing. It reflects the extremely important role that the court has to play.” The negative views of different Peers and the Conservative Party is inevitable: the House of Lords do not want to relinquish the fusion of the legislature and judiciary and the Conservatives want to down trod anything Labour do. The positive response from the Bar, on the other hand, suggests that the court will have a positive effect in terms of the UK legal system.
The new Supreme Court will bring about great change to the UK in terms of separating the legislature and judiciary, however, I remained unconvinced by the costs of staff and their budget and the positioning of the court. It seems to me that the enormous budget is a façade created for the benefit of the public’s conscience and the use of Middlesex Guildhall is to ensure that the judiciary, although independent, is still under Parliament’s watchful eye. Given the location of the Supreme Court, space could well be a sought after commodity if Parliament decides to park its tanks on the judiciary’s lawn or visa-versa.
0 comments:
Post a Comment