§ 37. Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General how many judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal have been removed from their offices since 1945 under Section 12 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNone, Sir.
§ Mr. LiptonBefore this section of the Act is allowed to become obsolete, would not now be a good opportunity to exercise it in the case of Sir Philip Wien for his disgraceful summing-up in the Court of Appeal recently—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows that, to criticise a judge, it must be when we are discussing the substantive motion which, I understand, is placed on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. LiptonThere is already a motion on the Order Paper to which—
§ Mr. SpeakerYes, but we are not discussing it at the moment.
§ Mr. SkinnerMy hon. Friend is trying to.
§ Mr. LiptonI am not attempting to discuss the motion—
§ Mr. SkinnerI thought that my hon. Friend was.
§ Mr. LiptonAll I am asking the Attorney-General is that he should bring this section of the Act into life again before it becomes completely obsolete in the case of Sir Philip Wien, for reasons which are well known to this House but which you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow me to elaborate.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker, to what you have already said.
§ Mr. CarlisleDoes not the Attorney-General agree that a lot of emotional nonsense has been talked about this case? Does not he accept that, whatever the decision, the intention of judges in the High Court to show a degree of leniency to a man of 18 and of previous good character is one which in principle many of his own Back Benchers have regularly asked of the Court of Appeal?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am not sure about the extent to which the rules should not apply on both sides. For my own part, I rarely criticise a judge on the ground of his leniency.