Judiciary (Guidance) (Hansard, 16 January 1984)

§ 25. Mr. Deakins
asked the Attorney-General in what circumstances the Lord Chancellor issues guidance to the judiciary.

§ The Attorney-General
The Lord Chancellor never issues guidance as to how any individual case should be decided. In view, however, of his responsibilities as head of the judiciary and as the Minister answerable to Parliament for the administration of justice, it may fall to the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the senior judiciary, and often at their request, to give general advice and guidance in connection with those responsibilities.

§ Mr. Deakins
Is it not wrong that the Master of the Rolls should have had discussions on politically sensitive matters with a senior civil servant in 1982, apparently without the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor, who has since had to remind judges that they should keep him informed on such matters? Does the Attorney-General approve of that practice, which breaches the long-standing rule about separation of the judiciary from the Executive? Was he aware of the meeting in question, as the Lord Chancellor was not?

§ The Attorney-General
It is right to get the facts. In 1975 the present Master of the Rolls gave an address at the annual general meeting of the Industrial Law Society. It was interesting and, in a sense, quite provocative and was reported in full in the Industrial Law Journal of 1975. As we know, Mr. Quinlan saw the present Master of the Rolls 14 in 1982 to discuss the address and the views expressed by someone of great experience in that area of the law. The text of the report — I am not sure whether this information has been disclosed before — was never shown to a Minister. It was used by the senior civil servant concerned for his own use. There was no political twist to the case, because the report was never shown to a Minister. Judges are often consulted in confidence on matters in which they have special expertise. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Lord Chancellor has said that in future it would be wise for judges to consult him first if they are to be asked for their views in confidence. The Lord Chancellor has invited his colleagues in Government to do the same.

§ Mr. Cormack
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Wolverhampton last week the magistrates fined somebody who had three time's the legal limit of alcohol in his blood and had never passed a driving test only £200, although he had killed somebody as a result of his reckless driving? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consult the Lord Chancellor about issuing advice to magistrates in such cases?

§ The Attorney-General
It is important to recognise the difference between the Lord Chancellor speaking about a particular decision, which, of course, he cannot do as such action would immediately invite the attack that the Executive is interfering with the judiciary, and speaking generally on sentencing. As the House knows, it is intended to give the Court of Appeal the same power with regard to sentences as it already has with regard to points of law on convictions that have been referred by the Attorney-General, although the case in question would not have the sentence altered.

§ Mr. Janner
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask that the Lord Chancellor tell, instruct and advise the judiciary to stop imposing nominal and pathetic penalties on companies and individuals who kill and maim people at work and are convicted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? Will he draw to their attention the power to imprison and impose condign penalties, as a person who is murdered as a result: of negligence in a place of work is just as dead as he would be if he were slaughtered on a road?

§ The Attorney-General
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are cases in which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice issue practice directions. The proposal to give the Court of Appeal the chance to review some sentences will be useful. I look forward to it becoming part of the law.

§ Mr. John Morris
I find it difficult to understand how a senior civil servant should have something "for his own use," to quote the Attorney-General. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman invite the Lord Chancellor to underline the importance of the judiciary being independent of the Executive and being seen to be independent of the Executive? Will the Lord Chancellor ensure that, in future, correspondence between the Executive and the judiciary and details of any meetings pertaining thereto are made public? Will he also ensure that in circumstances, such as individual cases, when it might be disadvantageous to publicise details, the fact that correspondence has taken place will be made public? Would that not help to guard against the suggestion that the judiciary is politically involved in any way?

§ The Attorney-General
There must be many occasions when those involved, such as the Lord Chancellor or the Home Office, who are concerned with the creation of a new offence, would want to consult the judiciary on what it believes is the appropriate penalty, or on whether an existing offence needs to remain on the statute book. I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects that, in those cases, there will be full publication of what is necessarily a confidential discussion and exchange of correspondence.