It is alrady possible to appoint non-lawyers as tribunal judges provided they have the skills and experience to match - see the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 schedule 2 paragraph 1(2)(d). On the face of it, the government's proposal looks like a scheme to revive the immigration adjudicators, part of the Immigration Appellate Authorities, which were abolished in 2005. While the original adjudicators tended to be ex-colonial civil servants (or so it was alleged) by 2005 they were mostly lawyers anyway, I think. The TCEA provision was mainly aimed at attracting academic lawyers to the role of tribunal judge
There have been other judicial roles in the past where non-lawyers could be appointed - the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, now the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber, and the registrars in the Principal Registry of the Family Division, now District Judges.,for instance. They faded away largely because a legal career was just a better fit for judicial office,especially if flexibility between jurisdictions was desirable. Are things different now, compared to 20 years ago?The only new sources I can visualise are ex-Home Office officials and immigration advisers regulated by OISC. No doubt many could do the job well but I wonder whether there really are enough who would be attracted to the role to make a difference.In career terms it looks like a dead end.
Many thanks. I thought the "non-lawyer" provision was aimed mainly at legal academics. And I wonder how ex-Home Office officials, however familiar they may be with the law, could demonstrate the necessary level of independence.
There would certainly be a perception issue around appointing ex-Home Office people but speaking just as an ex-civil servant (though not Home Office) I suspect many would be only too pleased to get out from under political initiatives and do what they think is right.
I wonder if the young modeller - or his successor - still drafts proposals affecting the qualifications and experience of the immigration judiciary.
While intending no disrespect for county court judges and the issues raised before them, the modeller may wish to consider that every year or thereabouts sees immigration law enriched by some new statute or major rule change, to say nothing of fresh country reports relating to war-torn third world countries. Immigration cases often involve such life-changing issues the separation of established families, the deportation of individuals to places where they may face the risk of torture or death or, in the case of women, genital mutilation.
If our modeller were to spend even a week in an immigration court, he may realise the gravity of some of the issues affecting the judiciary.
I wonder if the young modeller - or his successor - still drafts proposals affecting the qualifications and experience of the immigration judiciary.
While intending no disrespect for county court judges and the issues raised before them, the modeller may wish to consider that every year or thereabouts sees immigration law enriched by some new statute or major rule change, to say nothing of fresh country reports relating to war-torn third world countries. Immigration cases often involve such life-changing issues the separation of established families, the deportation of individuals to places where they may face the risk of torture or death or, in the case of women, genital mutilation.
If our modeller were to spend even a week in an immigration court, he may realise the gravity of some of the issues affecting the judiciary.
Years ago I remember during one of many longueurs at court having a conversation with the son of my client, who turned out to work for the DoJ “modelling” different sorts of courts and tribunals. He happened to be working on one for the county court at the time which proposed replacing district judges with panels of non lawyer assessors.
It emerged during our conversation that in the course of developing this model he had had no idea of the role of county court district judges beyond the obvious one of hearing civil cases nor had he ever observed one in action. My instructing solicitor who happened to be a deputy DJ sat there opened mouthed whilst I gently suggested that he might think it a good idea to go and watch at least one DJ at work before he went very much further.
Possibly I flattered myself in thinking that our reactions to his description of his model led to its sinking without trace. However one gets a distinct whiff of it here so perhaps rather than being abandoned altogether it was simply left mouldering in a cupboard only to be dragged out again many years later, dusted down, and re-invented in the Immigration Tribunals.
It is alrady possible to appoint non-lawyers as tribunal judges provided they have the skills and experience to match - see the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 schedule 2 paragraph 1(2)(d). On the face of it, the government's proposal looks like a scheme to revive the immigration adjudicators, part of the Immigration Appellate Authorities, which were abolished in 2005. While the original adjudicators tended to be ex-colonial civil servants (or so it was alleged) by 2005 they were mostly lawyers anyway, I think. The TCEA provision was mainly aimed at attracting academic lawyers to the role of tribunal judge
There have been other judicial roles in the past where non-lawyers could be appointed - the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, now the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber, and the registrars in the Principal Registry of the Family Division, now District Judges.,for instance. They faded away largely because a legal career was just a better fit for judicial office,especially if flexibility between jurisdictions was desirable. Are things different now, compared to 20 years ago?The only new sources I can visualise are ex-Home Office officials and immigration advisers regulated by OISC. No doubt many could do the job well but I wonder whether there really are enough who would be attracted to the role to make a difference.In career terms it looks like a dead end.
Many thanks. I thought the "non-lawyer" provision was aimed mainly at legal academics. And I wonder how ex-Home Office officials, however familiar they may be with the law, could demonstrate the necessary level of independence.
There would certainly be a perception issue around appointing ex-Home Office people but speaking just as an ex-civil servant (though not Home Office) I suspect many would be only too pleased to get out from under political initiatives and do what they think is right.
I wonder if the young modeller - or his successor - still drafts proposals affecting the qualifications and experience of the immigration judiciary.
While intending no disrespect for county court judges and the issues raised before them, the modeller may wish to consider that every year or thereabouts sees immigration law enriched by some new statute or major rule change, to say nothing of fresh country reports relating to war-torn third world countries. Immigration cases often involve such life-changing issues the separation of established families, the deportation of individuals to places where they may face the risk of torture or death or, in the case of women, genital mutilation.
If our modeller were to spend even a week in an immigration court, he may realise the gravity of some of the issues affecting the judiciary.
I wonder if the young modeller - or his successor - still drafts proposals affecting the qualifications and experience of the immigration judiciary.
While intending no disrespect for county court judges and the issues raised before them, the modeller may wish to consider that every year or thereabouts sees immigration law enriched by some new statute or major rule change, to say nothing of fresh country reports relating to war-torn third world countries. Immigration cases often involve such life-changing issues the separation of established families, the deportation of individuals to places where they may face the risk of torture or death or, in the case of women, genital mutilation.
If our modeller were to spend even a week in an immigration court, he may realise the gravity of some of the issues affecting the judiciary.
Years ago I remember during one of many longueurs at court having a conversation with the son of my client, who turned out to work for the DoJ “modelling” different sorts of courts and tribunals. He happened to be working on one for the county court at the time which proposed replacing district judges with panels of non lawyer assessors.
It emerged during our conversation that in the course of developing this model he had had no idea of the role of county court district judges beyond the obvious one of hearing civil cases nor had he ever observed one in action. My instructing solicitor who happened to be a deputy DJ sat there opened mouthed whilst I gently suggested that he might think it a good idea to go and watch at least one DJ at work before he went very much further.
Possibly I flattered myself in thinking that our reactions to his description of his model led to its sinking without trace. However one gets a distinct whiff of it here so perhaps rather than being abandoned altogether it was simply left mouldering in a cupboard only to be dragged out again many years later, dusted down, and re-invented in the Immigration Tribunals.
Thin end of the wedge. How long before all the other qualified lawyer roles, such as traffic adjudicators, become ‘downgraded’?