Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the potential implications for her polices of the principles set out in the Porter v. Magill 2001 House of Lords ruling in last six moths, in the context of advising on promotions from the first tier tribunal.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The number of judges who have been elevated from the first-tier tribunal within six months of receiving formal advice of misconduct from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in the last five years is one.
The majority of appointments to judicial office are based on selection by the independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which has a statutory duty to make selections based on merit alone.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many promotions of judges from the first tier tribunal have been made within six months of receiving formal advise for misconduct from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The number of judges who have been elevated from the first-tier tribunal within six months of receiving formal advice of misconduct from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in the last five years is one.
The majority of appointments to judicial office are based on selection by the independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which has a statutory duty to make selections based on merit alone.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information her Department holds on the number of tribunal judges who have been promoted to become Circuit Judges by the Judicial Appointments Commission within six months of receiving a formal advice of misconduct from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Circuit Judges are appointed by the King, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice, following a fair and open competition administered by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
The number of judges who have been appointed as Circuit Judges having been tribunal judges, within six months of receiving formal advice of misconduct from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in the last five years is one.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who instigated the complaint against Judge Charles Falk to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) in April 2022; whether that complaint fell outside of the JCIO's three month limit for investigation of complaints; whether the investigation was carried out by a panel or a single person; how long that investigation took; and whether that investigation included interviews with (a) Judge Charles Falk and (b) any other relevant people involved in the case.
Answered by James Cartlidge - Shadow Secretary of State for Defence
The independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) considers complaints in accordance with the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and other office holders) Rules 2014.
The rules enable the JCIO, with the agreement of a nominated judge, to consider information received in the absence of a complaint as if it were a complaint. That process was duly followed in the matter regarding Judge Falk. After careful assessment by the JCIO, there was no evidence of misconduct by the judge and the matter was dismissed.
With the exception of published information about disciplinary sanctions, information about judicial disciplinary matters is confidential, and further details cannot therefore be provided.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reasons the Judicial Executive Board does not have members from Black and Minority Ethnic communities.
Answered by Alex Chalk
There are no Judicial Executive Board (JEB) members from Black and minority ethnic communities. JEB is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales and comprised of the judges in the most senior leadership roles - the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, the President of the Family Division, the Chancellor of the High Court, the Senior President of Tribunals and the Senior Presiding Judge for England & Wales, as well as the Chair of the Judicial College and the Chief Executive of Judicial Office. Appointments to the leaderships roles are made through the independent Judicial Appointments Commission. The Lead Diversity Judge also sits on the Board and shows the commitment to diversity at the heart of the senior judicial leadership.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reason the Judges Council which advises the Lord Chancellor does not have any Black and Minority Ethnic members.
Answered by Alex Chalk
The Judges’ Council does not advise the Lord Chancellor. The primary function of the Judges’ Council is to inform and advise the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales. Members of the Judicial Executive Board (including the Lead Diversity Judge) are also members of the Judges’ Council. Other members are selected by the judicial group which that member represents including, for example, the High Court Judges’ Association, the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges, the Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges and the Magistrates’ Association. Diversity data for Judges’ Council members is not held separately.
Asked by: Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisons have reported inadequate supplies of personal protective equipment during the covid-19 outbreak.
Answered by Lucy Frazer
The supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) required by the prison service is kept under regular review by the department, making sure that there is sufficient stock to be responsive to changing local contexts. There is currently adequate stock and forward supply of PPE, in accordance with public health advice.
We have stock in the hundreds of thousands for aprons, coveralls, eye protection, pairs of gloves, respirator masks and fluid-resistant surgical masks, as well as hand sanitiser. However, we are making continued preparations and keeping demand for PPE under regular review as we move into the next phase of managing this outbreak.