Press endangers judges

Inaccurate report led to security threats, lady chief justice says

An inaccurate newspaper report that was followed up at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago has resulted in “extraordinarily serious security threats” to judges, the lady chief justice of England and Wales told the House of Lords constitution committee yesterday.

Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the Hill was asked by Lord Strathclyde CH, the committee chair, why she had been “seemingly so tough” on the prime minister and the leader of the opposition at her annual news conference last week.

“No one is saying that there should not be healthy, robust, open debate both in and outside parliament,” Carr replied, “including criticism, if necessary, of judgments.

“However, criticism of a judgment — debating a judgment — is one thing. Inaccurate reporting and the abuse of judges who cannot speak out to defend themselves is another.”

Baroness Carr answering peers’ questions yesterday

The senior judge said her concerns had been triggered by the dangers of inaccurate reporting.

“To imply, for example, that a Palestinian family was allowed to settle in this country under the Ukrainian family scheme is simply, wholly wrong. But as a result of that headline and the publicity, without going into details or individuals, there have been extraordinarily serious security threats.

“We are talking about judges being doorstepped. We have a death threat to a judge.”

Carr said there were judges whose families lived in fear, whose homes were targeted. One judge had been contacted on social media by someone who claimed threateningly that he was standing next to the judge’s child on a bus.

As the senior judge of England and Wales, Carr had a responsibility to protect her judges and defend them. It was absolutely unacceptable, she told peers, that judges were exposed to the sort of comments and reporting that shatter their lives.

“They change the way we work on a day-to-day basis now. We are taking steps — which I cannot divulge or share — on a daily basis in relation to where we do things and how we do things.”

Lord Anderson of Ipswich KBE KC pointedly quoted a passage from Erskine May, the handbook of parliamentary procedure, which bans spur-of-the-moment attacks on judges in parliament. It says that

unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon… judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom (including persons holding the position of a judge, such as circuit judges and their deputies, as well as recorders).

A footnote adds that “reflections against judges generally are equally out of order”. The Commons speaker had ruled in 1973 that

it can be argued that a judge has made a mistake, that he was wrong, and the reasons for those contentions can be given, within certain limits; but reflections on a judge’s character or motives cannot be made except on a motion, nor can any charge of a personal nature be made except on a motion.

Carr said her approach was probably more liberal than the parliamentary rules allowed. She had no problem with criticism of judicial decisions. “Appropriate public debate inside and outside parliament, based on fact not misconception, is a sign of a healthy democracy.”

But uninformed criticism was dangerous. Asked about the steps being taken by the judiciary to ensure that judgments were reported accurately, she pointed out that although press summaries were sometimes issued as an aid to understanding, “there are, of course, some areas where however simple and clear you make it, it’s still not going to be reported in that way because there are other agendas.”

A report published on the Telegraph website last night acknowledges that the case of the Palestinian family was first revealed by the newspaper but makes no mention of Carr’s criticism of inaccurate reporting or its consequences.

Post Office

The lady chief justice was also asked about the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024, which quashed the convictions of Post Office workers covered by its provisions.

“I’m sure we all felt desperate at the miscarriages of justice,” Carr said. But she thought parliament had eventually accepted that the legislation breached the rule of law:

It was openly accepted that it was inconsistent with the rule of law but the position taken was that these were exceptional circumstances that justified taking that exceptional step and that this should not set a precedent. On the latter point, of course, I heartily concur.

But the lesson to be learned is a very short and a very simple one. There must be comprehensive engagement with the serving judiciary at the earliest opportunity before there is any commitment to legislation of that nature. It is not for the judiciary to comment on policy but we can comment on practical options and consequences.

The bill was passed without anybody having any evidence or any full engagement with any understanding of what precisely the judiciary could have managed without legislation. I read comments from certain members to the effect that there was some disinclination to rely on retired judges, for example. I have no idea where that came from. It was not accurate.

We were dealing with appeal cases within days. I sat on an appeal in January 2023 and we disposed of the matter, I think, within a week.

So judges and courts, as many in this room will know, are very well experienced at dealing with a large number of high volume cases. We had a good system for triaging. We had good connections with the defence barristers. We had good connections with the prosecutors.

That is my answer to your question: I welcome the question. That is the single takeaway, please. There must be full early engagement with the serving judiciary before there is public commitment.

There was a public commitment to legislation very, very quickly, certainly in January itself. And once that commitment was made…

Carr left the answer hanging in the air.