Last week the government moved once again to sort out Britain’s turgidly Blairite, messy constitution by appointing a new chair of its review into the Human Rights Act and review of the role of judges to investigate whether they’ve become too political in recent years. Chosen to head the committee is former judge Sir Peter Gross, who, on the same day of his appointment, gave a speech to Swansea university on the subject of “The Judiciary Today – The Least Dangerous Branch”. Some of his comments are illuminating…
Perhaps most eye-catching is his belief that judges should avoid institutional overreach, and his cutting jibes that judges all the way up to the Supreme Court should maintain the traditional virtue of “Judicial reserve and restraint”. At one point specifically referencing Gina Miller’s second Supreme Court, Sir Peter argues judges should not “court public controversy”:
“And judges ought not to be seen as “celebrities””
A pointed criticism of Baroness Hale and her spider broach?
While these comments might excite Tory ranks who want to see the courts reined in, later in his speech Sir Peter said the courts will have a “major role” to play “in the post-Pandemic and post-Brexit times ahead.” Gina Miller’s ears will be pricked…
Guido’s combed through the speech and gives you Sir Peter’s main points below:
1. There must be “mutual respect between the three branches of the State, avoiding institutional overreach.”
2. Government distaste for a particular court decision – or numerous decisions – shouldn’t result in knee-jerk policy responses
3. This is not to say Gross doesn’t want “careful deliberation”, pointing to a number of options including “wait and see”, statutory correction and calm and measured consideration by way of independent review*
4. “mutual respect and the avoidance of institutional overreach cuts both ways”
5. There is a line between “legitimate Judicial development of the law” and “unwarranted judicial law-making
6. Any controversy between the three branches of state cannot and must not be allowed to distract from the judiciary’s major role “in the post-Pandemic and post-Brexit times ahead.”