The Lords’ spokesperson for the ministry of justice has condemned “ill-informed” media attacks on judges, as political pressure mounts for Liz Truss to speak out __more clearly in defence of judicial independence.
Richard Keen’s comments follow a confrontation between the justice secretary and Conservative MPs at a private meeting on Monday night. They voiced concerns over Truss’s handling of the criticism of high court judges in the article 50 court case. The Daily Mail branded them “enemies of the people”.
Tory MPs at the meeting, many of them senior lawyers, are understood to have told Truss, who is also lord chancellor, there was “huge concern” among colleagues at the slowness of her response to the attacks by newspapers and politicians on Lord Thomas, the lord chief justice, the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales.
Truss told the MPs her initial silence on the issue had been an attempt to allow tempers to cool, but that the ministry would be faster to respond when the government’s appeal reached the supreme court in December.
She also said the job of defending the judiciary should fall to the lord chief justice in the first instance, an argument described by one source as “feeble” given that Thomas was one of those under attack.
Tory MPs said Truss’s explanations had been inadequate. She was “not in charge on the issues”, according to one.
In the House of Lords on Tuesday, the Conservative former justice minister Edward Faulks, a past critic of Truss, questioned Lord Keen about the issue.
“Last week saw a disgraceful attack on the judiciary,” Lord Faulks said. “Would you take this opportunity to show the government’s support for the entire cohort of the judiciary, whether it be the supreme court, the divisional court or the magistracy?”
Keen replied: “We have a judiciary of the highest calibre. We have a free press which is not always of the highest calibre.
“Sensationalist and ill-informed attacks can undermine public confidence in the judiciary. But our public can have every confidence in our judiciary and it is a confidence, I believe, that must be shared by the executive.”
The Conservative chair of the Commons justice select committee, Bob Neil, issued a statement, saying it condemned personal attacks on members of the judiciary.
“Free debate should not be couched in terms of abuse of individuals who, by virtue of the oath they have taken and the role they discharge, cannot defend themselves publicly,” he said. “It is quite wrong to vilify or attack judges or attempt to intimidate or undermine them. The right of the press to speak freely must be exercised responsibly; it is not a licence to attack judges in a personal manner or seek to undermine the constitutional principle of judicial independence, which is absolute.”
The human rights lawyer Philippe Sands called on Truss to resign, saying she had irrevocably lost the confidence of the legal profession.
Labour’s shadow justice secretary, Richard Burgon, said Truss’s response had been too little, too late, and public confidence in the judiciary had been undermined as a result.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law announced that it had invited Truss to deliver a public lecture under the title: “What is the rule of law? What does it require?”
It said in a statement: “The lord chancellor has a constitutional and statutory duty that is unique within government. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 sets out the duty, encapsulated by the lord chancellor swearing an oath to ‘respect the rule of law’ and ‘defend the independence of the judiciary’.
“A lord chancellor’s lecture would … be a vital step forward in giving the conversation the depth and prominence it needs in national life, and in giving substance to what the rule of law is, the lord chancellor’s role, and what it means to respect the rule of law.”
The Ministry of Justice declined to comment or to challenge the Tory MPs’ assertion that Truss believed it was the lord chief justice’s initial responsibility to defend the judiciary.
On Saturday, Truss released a short statement saying: “The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality. In relation to the case heard in the high court, the government has made it clear it will appeal to the supreme court. Legal process must be followed.”
In a separate development, six high court judges have launched an employment tribunal challenge against Truss, alleging illegal discrimination over their pension rights on the basis of their age.
The judges are Sir Nicholas Mostyn, 59, Sir Roderick Newton, 58, Sir Philip Moor, 57, Dame Lucy Theis, 55, Sir Richard Arnold, 55, and Sir Rabinder Singh, 52. They claim the pension scheme, introduced in April last year, penalises them because of their ages.
Younger judges are either automatically enrolled on the new scheme, which the claimants’ lawyers say is less favourable in terms of benefits, or come on to it after a transitional period.
In another case a district judge, Claire Gilham, who lost her challenge against the Ministry of Justice over whistleblowing complaints about courtroom dangers – including death threats, violent claimants and hostage-taking – has been given permission to appeal.