Procedure for Appointing Judges

Debate between Joanna Cherry and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this important debate. What a pleasure it is to speak after the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

I will begin by declaring a few interests. Not surprisingly, most of us speaking in the debate are lawyers, and I am a non-practising member of the Scottish Bar. I am also vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the rule of law and, as has been kindly mentioned by others today, I was the lead petitioner in the case that came to be known as the Cherry case, because that is my surname, which went to the Supreme Court. I am also involved in litigation currently proceeding in Scotland under the name of Dale Vince. I declare my interest, having been supported by the Good Law Project and the generosity of Mr Vince, who is a green energy entrepreneur.

Today’s debate has come about because of comments prompted by ill-informed fallout from the decision of the Supreme Court on Prorogation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East laid out the circumstances in which that happened. It is a particular matter of regret that on 11 September Downing Street sources briefed The Sun that

“legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason”.

Well, I chose the Scottish courts because I live in Scotland. The implication that the Scottish courts are somehow politicised is offensive as well as ignorant. There is, however, a tradition in Scotland going back to the declaration of Arbroath and the claim of right that neither the monarch nor the Government are above the law. I was very proud to see that tradition followed by the Scottish courts.

It was also great to hear Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, remind us that it is also part of the English tradition, when she said that

“the courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction”

over the lawfulness of acts of the Government “for centuries”. As long ago as 1611, the court held that the King, who was effectively the Government, had

“no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”.

I join others in particularly deprecating not so much the press, of which we have come to expect very little, but Government sources—particularly unnamed Downing Street sources, who seem to be cropping up all over the place at the moment—for the anti-judicial and anti-Scottish sentiment that they tried to stir up.

It was also a matter of some regret that a Government Minister, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), went on television and said:

“The extent to which lawyers and judges are interfering in politics is something that concerns many people.”

He went on to say that

“many people…are saying that the judges are biased”.

He specifically claimed that

“many leave voters...are beginning to question the partiality of the judges”,

while going on to state that he personally believed that the judges were impartial.

[Dr Poulter]

As I was sitting here, it occurred to me that a former colleague of ours, albeit from before our time in the House, Humfrey Malins, who was the hon. Member for Woking, was, while he was a sitting MP, a practising barrister and, I believe, a recorder. I do not believe that anybody called into question his impartiality when he was overseeing cases in that role, or indeed subsequently when he stood down from the House, even though he is a committed Conservative. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Lady would like to reflect on that, in the context of what she was just saying.

[Joanna Cherry]

I was not aware of that. Certainly my party, the Scottish National party, believes that MPs should devote themselves full time to that job. That is why I have been a non-practising member of the Scottish Bar from the moment that I was elected. I would find it rather curious if a Member of Parliament were, in the modern age, sitting in a judicial capacity. I think that would rather interfere with the separation of powers, whereby legislature, Executive and judiciary should be separate. However, I was not aware of those circumstances, so perhaps I should not say any more about them.

Returning to the comments made on television by the right hon. Member for Spelthorne, although it has been good to hear the Lord Chancellor repeatedly assert the independence of the judiciary, including today at Justice questions, it is reprehensible for Government Ministers to attempt to stir up anti-judicial sentiment as in this situation. I totally believe in freedom of speech, and am on the record as being somebody on the left who is very much in favour of it. Sometimes the champions of freedom of speech are to be found very much on the right, but there are some of us on the left, and I would never question anyone’s right to say that they disagree with a decision. However, if a Government Minister or unnamed sources call into question the independence or impartiality of the judiciary, such comments can serve to normalise a crude scepticism that ignores the legally complex and personally demanding work that judges have to perform. That is why we politicians have to be careful what we say. Many decisions in the past have not pleased me, and I have certainly criticised them, but I have not tried to suggest that they were made because the judges were of a different political persuasion to me.

We can do no better than look at one of England’s most respected jurists, Lord Bingham, who said in the Belmarsh case in 2004 that it is wrong to argue that judges are somehow undemocratic simply because they are unelected, or because they are asked to assess the legality of the Government’s decisions. He said that, on the contrary,

“the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself.”

I think what Lord Bingham was really saying is that the very concept of a modern democracy envisages an important role for the courts.

It is particularly important to remember that the decision that was made by the Supreme Court justices was not a political decision; as Lady Hale was at pains to underline, it was a decision on the law. In Scotland’s Court of Session, Lord Drummond Young said in relation to the case:

“The courts cannot subject the actings of the executive to political scrutiny, but they can and should ensure that the body charged with performing that task, Parliament, is able to do so.”

That is what the case was about: restoring to Parliament its function of politically scrutinising the Executive. Those on the right of British politics outside this room who do not like what happened in the Supreme Court should ask themselves how they would feel if a left-wing Prime Minister sitting at the apex of a minority Government prorogued Parliament because it was getting in his or her way. It cuts both ways, and that is why this is a principle of law and democracy rather than a political decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has already quoted some pertinent comments made by Sir David Edward, former judge of the European Court of Justice. I will also quote Lord Hope of Craighead, former Deputy President of the Supreme Court and a former Lord President of the Court of Session, who said that the suggestion—initially made by the Attorney General—that there might need to be some parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments was “wholly misguided”. He said:

“The Supreme Court justices were careful to explain in their judgment”

in the Prorogation case

“that they were not pronouncing on political questions. The issues with which they were dealing, as is the case with all the other issues that come before them, were issues of law.”

He went on to say that vetting judges

“would risk politicising the office which they hold, in the minds of the public”

and would be

“contrary to the fact that political opinion plays no part in the work that they do.”

He finished by saying:

“The guiding principle is that they decide cases according to the laws and usages of this country, and not according to such political views, if any that they might happen to hold.”

Very trenchantly, he added:

“We have nothing to learn on this issue from what happens in the United States.”

Somebody pointed out earlier that there will be some judges in position who have, in a previous life, expressed political views. Of course, in Scotland we no longer have a tradition of political appointments for the Law Officers—they are apolitical appointments—but in the past, we did. Frequently, the Lord Advocate in Scotland would go on to sit on the bench, and he—it was always a “he” in those days—would have been from either a Labour or a Conservative background. However, the crucial thing was that when he took his seat, he took the judicial oath of impartiality, and put aside the politics he had had before to enable him to make impartial decisions on the law. I do not think the ability to do that is confined to men. Thankfully, there are at last plenty of women coming through in the judiciary, both north and south of the border. We would all like to see more, but it has been very important to see a female English judge at the apex of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court. As others have said, there is still much work to be done to ensure that the diversity of all our communities across Scotland and England is represented on the bench.

I will finish with a quote from almost 15 years ago, when Professor Anthony Bradley was advising the House of Lords Constitution Committee. I am pleased to say that Professor Bradley was my tutor when I was an undergraduate at the University of Edinburgh, 30 years ago; he was then, and is now, a very respected authority on constitutional law in the United Kingdom. Back in December 2005, he told that Committee:

“It is more important than ever that the courts should be able to do justice in an even-handed and impartial manner. Ministers and the Government in general should not seek to blame the judges when the courts make decisions that are adverse to the wishes or policies of the Government.”

All of us who are politicians should aspire to follow that advice. His message is just as important now as it was then, given the fallout we have had from the recent, landmark constitutional cases.

Public Legal Education

Debate between Joanna Cherry and Dan Poulter

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Joanna Cherry]

As I was saying, public legal education in Scotland begins at an early stage. Human rights is part of the curriculum for excellence that is taught in Scottish schools, and it is a core element of the health and wellbeing module of that curriculum. Schools in Scotland work in collaboration with organisations such as Amnesty International to deliver the human rights element of the curriculum.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is carrying out an inquiry into the enforcement of human rights and attitudes towards them. Last week, we heard evidence from a number of witnesses who said that there is a demonstrably different discourse about human rights in Scotland. They put that down to the teaching of human rights in Scottish schools, as well as to media in Scotland, which are less hostile to the concept of human rights.

Good human rights practice in Scotland flows from that less hostile environment towards human rights. The witnesses giving evidence to our Joint Committee last week gave as an example of that the embedding of human rights in the new Social Security (Scotland) Bill, which I am proud was introduced by my good friend and colleague Jeane Freeman, the Minister for Social Security in Scotland.

The witnesses also spoke of the wonderful work done by the Scottish Youth Parliament on legal education and rights. The Scottish Youth Parliament is a grassroots project—run in conjunction with the Scottish Parliament—that does a lot of good work in the area of human rights principles and children’s rights.

I am sure that other hon. Members present will, like me, have in their constituencies schools that are part of the UNICEF Rights Respecting Schools project. I am advised that 1.5 million children across the United Kingdom go to a rights respecting school. I am proud that I have worked with two schools in my constituency, Redhall School and Oxgangs Primary School, on rights respecting. The children were particularly interested in the importance of respecting the rights of child refugees.

Why teach human rights, and indeed legal education, in school? Scotland’s curriculum for excellence aims to enable students to become responsible citizens. As other hon. Members have said, learning about the law, rights, respect for others, and a commitment to participate in all aspects of public life helps children to grow up and aspire to be good citizens.

Students across Scotland, particularly law students, are involved in the delivery of public legal education through the Scottish Universities Law Clinic network. A number of universities in Scotland run free legal advice clinics for members of the public.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Lady is making some good points. She is absolutely right that a lot of law students can give their free time to such projects, but is there not a real problem in that some of the bigger law firms do not sign up to pro bono work and do not free up their solicitors to spend time in schools or to do other important pro bono work? What are her thoughts on dealing with that?

[Joanna Cherry]

I very much encourage those who have benefited from a free legal education in Scotland and beyond, and who are now doing well out of being lawyers, to engage in pro bono work. I am proud that the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland do that and encourage firms and individual advocates in Scotland to do it too. I will return to that in a moment.

The Edinburgh Napier law clinic is in my constituency. Edinburgh Napier University is a relatively recent deliverer of legal education in Scotland, but I am proud to say that staff and students have set up a voluntary clinic to provide free legal advice and assistance. We have a considerably more generous legal aid scheme in Scotland than in England and Wales, but nevertheless people fall through the cracks, and they can benefit from law clinics such as the one established by Edinburgh Napier University. One of the clinic’s main objectives is to broaden the concept of access to justice, and that is really what this debate is about, at least in part. Public legal education is about educating people and giving them access to justice.

I am also proud that Edinburgh University, which is not in my constituency but is my alma mater, has a free legal advice clinic, as does Glasgow Caledonian University, the University of Strathclyde, Aberdeen University, Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen and the University of the West of Scotland. Those law clinics are thriving. Many MPs and Members of the Scottish Parliament refer their constituents to them from time to time.

The Faculty of Advocates, which is the Scottish Bar, of which I am a member, also runs a law clinic or a free legal services unit, which is part of its commitment to promote access to justice. That means that members of the public can be referred through certain organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, to get free advice and representation from practising advocates in Scotland.