§ 43. Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Attorney-General how many members of the judiciary have been dismissed from office in the past 15 years to the nearest available date; and what procedures have to be instituted in order to achieve such a dismissal.
§ The Attorney-GeneralNone in England and Wales. The procedure for dismissal varies according to the judicial office. Judges of the Supreme Court hold office during good behaviour subject to a power of removal by Her Majesty on an Address presented by both Houses of Parliament. Circuit judges may be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour.
§ Mr. SmithIn view of that reply, does the Attorney-General believe in the principle that the judiciary should always be independent of the Executive? Furthermore, is he aware that political pressure from whatever quarter should never be 967 applied to the judiciary, if we are to uphold the tenets of our democracy?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe whole purpose of the provisions of the Courts Act 1971, restricting removal of circuit judges on the grounds that I have indicated, was to ensure the independence of the judiciary, and I know of no one who has ever doubted that the judiciary should be independent.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunIf, after the murder of an Asian youth, a self-confessed racialist can tell a meeting "One down and a million to go", does not it mean that all our racial legislation can be flouted with impunity? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore consider amending the Act to prevent this kind of thing from happening again?
§ The Attorney-GeneralCertainly there is no doubt whatever in my mind, and that of many people, that the observation to which my hon. Friend referred is not only grossly offensive but causes immense harm in regard to race relations. I think we have to wait to see how the new legislation resulting from the amendment works out. It came into operation only in June of last year and no cases have yet been heard. But certainly I shall watch it and I shall consult with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whose ministerial responsibility it is to amend the law. I shall certainly let him know what my views may be about that.
§ Mr. MayhewIn view of the demands for the judge's dismissal in this case, is it not fair to him to recall that the transcript shows that he was misleadingly reported in certain sections of the Press, that he gave no judgment in the case, as earlier Questions to the Attorney-General have suggested, that he withdrew no issue from the jury but left open to the jury the decision as to the effect of those words, and that Mr. Kingsley Read was ultimately acquitted not by the judge but by the jury?
§ The Attorney-GeneralWhatever view anyone may take about the summing-up as a whole, it is certainly true that certain of the remarks which were quoted in the Press were quoted out of context.
§ Mr. Arthur LathamWill not my right hon. and learned Friend, in defending the independence of the judiciary, agree that 968 it is important that judges should be seen to be impartial and non-political? Will he indicate to the House whether he has made any representations to the Lord Chancellor, and whether he feels that any jury or any legislation would be proof against the partial and partisan advice given by Judge McKinnon?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman left to the end of his question the reflection on the advice given by the judge. I must rule that that sort of comment can be made only during a debate on the motion which we do not have before us at the moment.
§ Mr. Arthur LathamOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw any imputation which is against parliamentary practice, but may I ask whether the first part of my supplementary question may be answered, and also whether it is in order to ask whether the Attorney-General has made representations to the Lord Chancellor about this judgment?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman may ask a question in general, without making any reflection on the judge.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have consulted with my noble Friend about many matters.