“ Baroness Carr added that judges and sometimes their families had been subject to grave threats and intimidation inside and outside the courtroom, both online and in the physical world.” One can only agree with the LCJ that this is intolerable. Not in her speech, but in previous comments elsewhere, the LCJ seems to have implied that judges had to leave their homes due to threats prompted by comments on a judge’s decision, made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. She warned of the threat to the independence of the judiciary that might arise from such comments in the HoC. It does not seem to have occurred to our activist LCJ criticism of proceedings in Parliament by a senior judge might be considered a threat to democracy.
1. Much though many family members and fellow activists sneer at and even excoriate all such pageantry, for quite some years I have believed that we are where we are and that we need to use whatever tools may be at our disposal to strive for change for the better.
2. Both the LCJ and the Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor - importantly and companionably sharing a platform-used the opportunity to support robustly our independent judiciary and to deplore its being held up to ridicule.
3. So glad that my good friend and eminent lawyer and Judge Bill (sorry, Sir William) Davis was rightly so lauded.
3. Whilst I remember the City of London is up to its elbows in nurturing the EVIL (word chosen with care) of offshore trusts and their ilk.
4. That aside , I worry ever more about the “push me-pull me” role of the Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor where it offends grievously against the doctrine of the separation of the powers. I almost used the adverb “impermissibly”.
In the course of the same twenty four interval she can be seen and heard in her fiercely independent judicial guise AND/OR even in the one speech then segueing into her combative, party oriented and Cabinet level role to attack the opposition. AND what of collective Cabinet responsibility for crunch decisions taken within those portals where on moral or legal grounds she finds them abhorrent.? Am I worrying overmuch about this? It causes for example -I am going to say it- that excuse for a Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has no such qualms when seeking his personal advancement but then does that not rather reinforce my point.
I am unsure as to the nature of the "joke" about a predecessor, but sadly it shows again the poor judgement of the current Lord Chancellor. Why she feels the need to do so on such an occasion I do not know. Sadly, she has always struck me as a rather lightweight LC.
“ Baroness Carr added that judges and sometimes their families had been subject to grave threats and intimidation inside and outside the courtroom, both online and in the physical world.” One can only agree with the LCJ that this is intolerable. Not in her speech, but in previous comments elsewhere, the LCJ seems to have implied that judges had to leave their homes due to threats prompted by comments on a judge’s decision, made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. She warned of the threat to the independence of the judiciary that might arise from such comments in the HoC. It does not seem to have occurred to our activist LCJ criticism of proceedings in Parliament by a senior judge might be considered a threat to democracy.
A number of thoughts clammer for my attention:
1. Much though many family members and fellow activists sneer at and even excoriate all such pageantry, for quite some years I have believed that we are where we are and that we need to use whatever tools may be at our disposal to strive for change for the better.
2. Both the LCJ and the Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor - importantly and companionably sharing a platform-used the opportunity to support robustly our independent judiciary and to deplore its being held up to ridicule.
3. So glad that my good friend and eminent lawyer and Judge Bill (sorry, Sir William) Davis was rightly so lauded.
3. Whilst I remember the City of London is up to its elbows in nurturing the EVIL (word chosen with care) of offshore trusts and their ilk.
4. That aside , I worry ever more about the “push me-pull me” role of the Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor where it offends grievously against the doctrine of the separation of the powers. I almost used the adverb “impermissibly”.
In the course of the same twenty four interval she can be seen and heard in her fiercely independent judicial guise AND/OR even in the one speech then segueing into her combative, party oriented and Cabinet level role to attack the opposition. AND what of collective Cabinet responsibility for crunch decisions taken within those portals where on moral or legal grounds she finds them abhorrent.? Am I worrying overmuch about this? It causes for example -I am going to say it- that excuse for a Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has no such qualms when seeking his personal advancement but then does that not rather reinforce my point.
I am unsure as to the nature of the "joke" about a predecessor, but sadly it shows again the poor judgement of the current Lord Chancellor. Why she feels the need to do so on such an occasion I do not know. Sadly, she has always struck me as a rather lightweight LC.