16th November 2020
You would think that the most incompetent government in living memory would realise it needs the benefits of checks and balances, and of accountability and scrutiny.
You would, it would seem, be wrong.
The Sunday Telegraph yesterday had this piece, entitled “Supreme Court to be overhauled to curtail its constitutional powers”.
A tweet promoting the article said: “Telegraph reports that the government plans to bring the UK Supreme Court to heel: change the name, reduce number of permanent judges, bring in specialists – rolling back Blair era reforms.”
The news report itself is quite light.
There is no source on the record.
There is no concrete internal government document, just “plans” and “proposals”.
The only quote off the record is attributed to a “Tory source”:
“There’s a feeling that Blair and Falconer made a complete dog’s dinner of constitutional reform and that we’re feeling the negative effects of it today.
“Just like in the US, campaigners are increasingly looking to the courts to settle political arguments and this puts the judiciary in a place most of its members really don’t want to be.”
The second sentence of the quote is interesting, as it frames the proposals in terms of the interests of the judges.
Given this framing, it should be noted that the article mentions later that the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Robert Buckland “is said to see the reforms as part of his legal role to defend the independence of the judiciary, amid concerns about the perception of the Supreme Court”.
The impression is thereby given that the “Tory source” and the person describing the views of Buckland are the same person, possibly (given the conventions of political journalism) Buckland himself or his special advisers.
The rest of the piece is mainly padding and contains no interesting detail.
So what should one make of it?
One feature is that the headline and the promotion of the article do not entirely accord with the substance of the piece, such as it is.
The import of the quoted “Tory source” and the description of Buckland’s view may perhaps be better characterised as “independence of the judiciary to be defended”.
If so, then the political significance of the report is not so much that an(other) attack is about to be mounted on the independence of the judiciary, but that this may be a preemptive effort at a defence.
Of course, the “proposals” and “plans” as reported are daft.
The Supreme Court, with its outstanding website and televised hearings, is an absolute boon for the public understanding of law.
Instead of being hidden down some parliamentary corridor (as was the the case with the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords), the work of the Supreme Court is an exercise in transparency and accountability.
And in respect of the defeats of which the government is complaining, much of the the blame is at the feet of ministers themselves.
In particular, the prorogation case was lost by the government because not a single minister or official would put their name to a witness statement, on pain of perjury, setting out the true reasons for why parliament was closed down.
That is hardly the fault of any Supreme Court judge, or indeed of any activist lawyer.
And what would the new name of the court be?
(Also, for what it is worth, there has long been a ‘supreme court’ in England and Wales before the name was appropriated by the new highest court – it was the name by which all the senior courts went before the reform – and this caused no problems at all.)
Maybe one should not take a minor example of performative politics in a SUnday newspaper too seriously.
The last thing this utter shambles of a government – facing a pandemic and a Brexit when it would not be able to deal properly with either, let alone both – is up to doing is significant constitutional reform.
But the noise is still important.
And the sound one can hear is that the government as a whole still has an illiberal temper and this indicates that, despite the reported departure of Dominic Cummings, the government still sees it as a priority that it should dismantle any parts of the state that can actually hold it to account.
If you value the free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary on this blog and at my Twitter account please do support either by the Paypal box above or by becoming a Patreon subscriber.
You can also subscribe to this blog at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
Comments are welcome but pre-moderated, and so comments will not be published if irksome.