"x x x.
Writing in the Guardian, Lord Falconer, who was lord chancellor between 2003 and 2007, said: “The British public continues to have confidence in the independence and quality of judges. But both are undermined by this Brexit-inspired media vitriol.
“The lord chancellor, Liz Truss, has a constitutional duty to defend the judges. She needs to make it clear immediately the government has no quarrel with the judges and has total confidence in them.
“Disagreement with the judges is dealt with by appeal not by abuse. Liz Truss’s silence feeds the sense the government is either hopeless at avoiding conflict or couldn’t care less about the constitution.”
Labour’s justice spokesman, Richard Burgon MP, also urged Truss, to uphold the independence of the judiciary in the face of “hysterical headlines … Some of the headlines in today’s newspapers personally attacking the judges who heard this case are unacceptable,” he said.
“As lord chancellor, Liz Truss should not stay silent. It is the lord chancellor’s job to uphold the independence of British judges and she must speak out urgently against the hysterical headlines of some papers and these attacks on British justice.”
The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “Where is Liz Truss? Her job is to uphold the rule of law and defend the judiciary and yet she is utterly silent while judges are being attacked by some newspapers. Our hard-fought rights and freedoms are protected by the law, British law that the Brexiteers claim that they wish to uphold.”
Truss is under a statutory obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary, the solicitor and legal blogger David Allen Green has pointed out. Section 3(6) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 sets out the lord chancellor’s duty to protect judicial independence.
Asked whether Truss wished to comment, the Ministry of Justice said she would not be making a statement.
The prime minister’s spokesman refused to condemn the language, saying: “I don’t think the British judiciary is being undermined.” He added: “I’m not commenting on newspaper coverage.”
Brendan Cox, widower of the Labour MP Jo Cox, cautioned against allowing the tone of the debate about Thursday’s judgment to become too febrile.
He tweeted: “Whatever our views on the court ruling I hope we can take a step back & debate it soberly. Inciting hatred has consequences.” Jo Cox, who represented the Batley and Spen constituency, was killed in the run-up to the EU referendum.
During the high court Brexit case the claimants challenging the ministers’ right to trigger Brexit received death threats and online abuse.
Politicians from the three main parties leapt to the defence of the judges. A former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, expressed alarm at attacks on the judiciary. “They are entirely unjustified and are either made in ignorance or out of malice, it’s impossible to know which,” he said.
“The judges are the safeguarders of our unwritten constitution. Nothing they have done ought to take anybody by surprise. To accede to the principle that you can change primary legislation by royal prerogative is a constitutional monstrosity and would totally undermine everything that our forebears struggled to give us. It would trash the constitution.”
The Conservative chair of the Commons justice select committee, Bob Neill, and Anna Soubry MP, a barrister, also condemned the headlines. She described the coverage in a tweet as: “Hysterical, dangerously inaccurate & bullying”.
Jonathan Marks, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, said: “The headlines in much of the press today and the anti-judge rhetoric from some politicians is extremely worrying. This hostility to the rule of law is irresponsible; the personal attacks on judges are plain nasty.
“British citizens won our freedoms from the tyranny of the crown painfully and over many centuries. The rights of minorities to think as they will, to live at peace and to claim the protection of the law against an over-mighty state are at stake here.”
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC, a former director of public prosecutions, said: “These are risible and constitutionally illiterate attacks from politicians who should know better. The high court has reaffirmed the sovereignty of parliament within the rule of law. In other words, it has fulfilled precisely its most critical function in a democratic society. The idea that judges would be better employed kowtowing to the executive is shameful heresy from political pygmies.”
The Welsh Assembly announced on Friday that it would seek permission to intervene in the anticipated supreme court hearing in which the government will appeal against the high court ruling. Announcing the Welsh government’s involvement, Mick Antoniw, an assembly member and counsel general for Wales, said he would raise concerns about the impact of Theresa May’s attempt to use royal prerogative powers on the devolved assembly.Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, the chair of the Bar Council, which represents barristers across England and Wales, said: “Publicly criticising individual members of the judiciary over a particular judgment or suggesting that they are motivated by their individual views, political or otherwise, is wrong, and serves only to undermine their vital role in the administration of justice.”
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment