§ 43. Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Attorney-General why Mr. Manus Nunan was given no reason for the termination of his recordership.
§ The Attorney-GeneralContrary to what the hon. Member states, in October 1984 Mr. Nunan was in fact warned in advance of defects in his judicial performance which had been reported to the Lord Chancellor's Office. Thereafter, the Lord Chancellor followed the procedure described in my answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) on 9 July 1986. Mr. Nunan's term of office expired on 31 December 1984. On 4 December, the Lord Chancellor, who was previously unaware personally of the case, satisfied himself as to the justification for the advice he had received that Mr. Nunan's performance had fallen below the standard required for renewal of his appointment. Mr. Nunan was duly informed of this decision. I understand that, at the invitation of the senior presiding Judge and with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Nunan is to visit the senior presiding Judge in order that the situation may be further explained. In addition, the Lord Chancellor has granted a request which he has just received from the Bar Council that Mr. Nunan should be given an opportunity for his case to be reconsidered by the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. Altonasked the Attorney-General why Mr. Manus Nunan did not have his recordership renewed for 1985.
§ The Attorney-GeneralMr. Nunan's judicial performance fell below a standard which justified the renewal of his appointment. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Leeds, West on 9 July 1986 for the procedure observed on these occasions.