§ 30. Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds)What representations he has received regarding the numbers of McKenzie friends attending legal proceedings (a) in court and (b) in chambers. [130598]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock)Since my previous reply on 25 January this year to the hon. Gentleman, I have not received any representations about McKenzie friends.
§ Mr. RuffleyWill the Minister explain to the House how it can possibly be in the interests of British justice for litigants in person to be increasingly deprived of McKenzie friends in court proceedings?
§ Mr. LockI do not accept the premise of the question. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that McKenzie friends are increasingly being denied access to courts. Judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that justice and fairness do not require that.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the nature of private proceedings in chambers, where confidential matters are frequently disclosed, means that anyone who is in those chambers and who seeks to play a professional part must be under a regulated system. McKenzie friends are entirely outside that. That is why the judges, in exercising their discretion to control what happens in their courts, have perfectly properly put that caveat on the role of McKenzie friends.