My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen
First of all, may I thank my distinguished fellow judges, Robert Thompson, the Editor of the Times, Lord Hutton, who has made a real contribution, Lord Grabiner and Sally O'Sullivan.
May I also pay tribute to One Essex Court and Times Newspapers who continue to sponsor these Awards - now in their 16th year. One Essex Court Chambers and Times Newspapers always choose topics that are at the core of current legal debate. This year's topic - "Constitutional Reform: Will the Justice System benefit?" - is a concern for all citizens, not just the legal profession or media.
I was truly encouraged by the responses to the question posed this year. Many of the arguments were compelling; impassioned; challenging. Tough questions were asked about what the real benefits will be to the justice system, if the constitutional reforms proposed by this government are implemented. What I found most heartening was the depth of the engagement with the issues at stake. I might not, in all instances have agreed with the conclusions, but the level of consideration that was given to the proposed constitutional reforms, and the probing questions asked, certainly impressed me. I will take the opportunity tonight to address some of the matters raised and to talk a little bit about why I think constitutional reform will benefit the justice system.
I will begin by stating emphatically that I would not be pursuing the proposed constitutional reforms if I did not believe strongly that they would be benefit to the Justice System. I am not proposing change for change's sake, but change for a purpose. That purpose is to ensure that our constitution is relevant to the needs of the public now.
A variety of opinions were expressed in the essays as to where Britain is now, and where Britain should to be in the future, in constitutional terms.
I think there is consensus that if you were going to create the structures of the constitution today, you wouldn't start from where we are now.
We need only to look at the position of the Lord Chancellor for that to become obvious. As you are all aware, I am now in the position of abolishing myself.
As Lord Chancellor, I am always in the upper chamber of our Parliament, the House of Lords. I act as speaker in the House.
The Lord Chancellor is a non-political judge; a political Cabinet minister; and a non-political Speaker. Constantly fulfilling different roles that require totally different approaches.
As some of you noted in your essays, that these arrangements work to some extent. I can see your point. To some extent.
But in other ways, I am strongly of the view that they most certainly do not work.
First, as a Minister. The issues for which I am responsible are ones which now attract great political controversy - not because of my identity, but they do attract political controversy, for example Legal Aid. The running of the justice system - civil and criminal - the policies to be applied, are right at the heart of the political debate. What are the correct sentences? How do you establish a fair balance between victim and defendant? How do you make the courts work better with their agencies?
The resolution of these issues needs to be addressed in a political context. A Cabinet Minister looking sometimes to the judges and sometimes to the public lacks the focus these issues require.
I do have a role in relation to the Judiciary. In that role, I deploy judges, discipline judges and appoint judges. As have all my recent predecessors, I have done so with scrupulous impartiality. But the agenda of judges and the agenda of politicians will, rightly, be different. The politician seeks to deliver the agenda of the public. The judge upholds the law independently of the immediate political pressures. Separating those agenda will improve the politician's ability to deliver, and the judge's ability to deliver the rule of law.
Turning now to the current judicial appointments arrangements: many argue that they have produced a very high quality bench, in whom the public has confidence. I agree. So why change them?
I believe leadership on judicial appointments should come from a group made up not of just senior politicians and the senior judiciary, but also from people with experience of appointments, and from the groups from within which appointments will be made. A member of the cabinet should not make the appointments. Nor should one senior judge. Currently that is the position.
The time has come to change. It seems extraordinary to me that it takes 80 years, from the entry of the first women, for one of them to reach the top of the profession. Lady Hale blazes a trail, and sets a very great precedent in my view. But 80 years is a long time for a trail to be blazed. And as one essay entrant put it, these are not my words: 'Are we really to believe that so far there has only been one woman and not a single non-white candidate with sufficient merit to become a Law Lord?' Not to say equality is not as thorough as it could be, but there must be something we could do. We are doing ourselves a disservice if the profession does not benefit from the breadth of vision, experience, skills and ability that a truly diverse membership of the bench gives.
This doesn't mean positive discrimination. Merit must and will remain the fundamental basis of people going to the bench.
Now, that is probably enough debate on constitutional reform. Tonight's winners have, no doubt, very promising careers ahead of them, and plenty of time to give further thought to such issues and to debate the pros and cons within their legal professions and legal peers.
Choosing these winners has been an unenviable task, the quality of the essays having been remarkably high. In choosing a winner, we took into account which essays provided the best analysis of the constitutional reform proposals and best identified the issues at stake. We then considered the arguments put forward in the essays and the conclusions reached. Of course, we might not have agreed with all the conclusions reached. But that was not the basis when making our decisions. More important were the arguments put forward in support of those conclusions. It was no easy task, but choose we must, and here are the winners.
Firstly, the runners-up prizes go to:
Edward Ho;
Joanna McGinley;
James MacDonald.
And now the winners. The third prize goes to an essay which compared the current state of constitutional reform to a 'Kaleidoscope in flux'. The essay was both very creative and very challenging. Well done: Yasseen Gailani.
In the second prize winning essay the major themes behind the constitutional reforms were defined as 'independence' and 'public confidence'. The essay discussed how far the proposed reforms might reinforce independence and public confidence in the constitution. The second prize goes to Nicholas Roberts.
It gives me great pleasure to award the first prize in the Times Law Awards 2004. This exceptional essay looked sensitively at the challenges posed by the reforms, delving beneath the issues with objectivity, considerable skill and depth. I believe it to be a brilliant essay. The first prize 2004 goes to James Brilliant.
Many congratulations to you all.