THE EARL OF MANSFIELDasked His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the recent utterance of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies reflecting upon the conduct of the Chief Justice of the Seychelles Islands.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)I assume that the Question relates to a passage in the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's reply to the debate on the administration of Seychelles on June 3. This passage amounted to disagreement with, and criticism of, language used by the Chief Justice of Seychelles; but it contained no reflection upon the conduct of the Chief Justice. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary was asked whether the Secretary of State considered that a man who had been described in a certain way by the Chief Justice was a fit person to sit on a legislative body. A negative answer would have implied that a Minister is bound to accept a mere expression of706WA opinion by a judge of a man's character, and that is not the case. The Secretary of State is advised fiat any suggestion that a judge is immune from criticism would be erroneous. A judge is not, therefore, entitled to assume that criticism, whether by a Minister of the Crown or anyone else, is an attempt by the Executive to exert pressure on the Judiciary. The question made it necessary for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to say whether the Chief Justice's description of the man was justified and he took a different view.