Fourteen years too late … realising they’ll never return to power unless they overcome WEFer BadEnough and do this.
Motive for archiving Robert Jenrick’s speech here is for later retrieval in whole or part:
We have some of the best lawyers, barristers and judges in the world. But we’ve got a problem. I have concerns that some judges have strongly held beliefs which have the potential to subvert the impartiality of the judiciary.
More than 30 sitting immigration judges have former links to the very activist groups that have ground our court system to a halt. Can judges who have supported and volunteered for organisations and charities such as Bail for Immigration Detainees – whose stated policy is to “work towards a world free of immigration detention” and where no one is “deported from their homes” – be considered to be neutral and unbiased?
Maybe they can, but it is time that we raise these questions. These are not isolated examples; they point to a judiciary where activism and adjudication seem to go together.
The problem goes beyond the effect of any decisions these judges have reached. The rule of law relies on the public having confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary – that the person hearing the cases they bring appears to be a neutral arbitrator.
If judges are tweeting political opinions that directly touch on the policies they’re charged with mediating upon, that confidence is shattered. That’s why I feel so strongly that these people should have no place in our justice system.
Plan to overhaul appointment of judges.
So, yesterday, I announced a bold new approach for how judges are appointed and how they’re removed. At present, judges are appointed and disciplined by quangos.
The first problem is that the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office routinely hands biased judges warnings rather than dismissing them.
The second problem goes much deeper, though – who picks the judges in our courts. Tony Blair handed the job to the Judicial Appointments Commission. Many of the Commissioners are doing a good job, others less so.
Our new plan would see judges appointed again by the Lord Chancellor – an elected minister accountable to the public. A new vetting board will scrutinise their background for any sign of bias, of whichever political hue.
Meanwhile, biased judges will be sacked automatically. If necessary, Parliament will invoke its ancient power to remove judges from the senior courts.
These reforms aren’t radical; they restore the position we had in this country before Blair’s constitutional vandalism.
But to members of the judiciary who object, let me say this. If you had kept your house in order, there would have been no need for these reforms. The public expects the courts to be impartial. Nothing less is acceptable.
156K Views
No comments:
Post a Comment
A reminder, dear reader, that you're welcome to comment as Anon but if so, please invent a moniker to appear somewhere in your text ... it tells Watchers nothing, it does help the readers.