There has been press and social media commentary focused on members of Garden Court Chambers and others who sit as part-time judges.
Like many others across the legal profession who sit in part-time judicial roles, those barristers continue their other legal work and practices. The Immigration Law team at Garden Court is among the best in the country, which is why the judiciary benefits from the high-level of skill and knowledge possessed by those practising at Garden Court. The availability of high-quality specialist lawyers is of great importance to the effective management of the immigration appellate system which, as has been widely reported, has suffered significant backlogs.
All judges, full or part-time, are subject to the Guide to Judicial Conduct and have taken the judicial oath which requires them to approach the cases before them in an unbiased way. If in any case a party thought that the judge might appear to an informed member of the public to be biased, they could ask the judge to recuse themselves from the case. This very seldom arises. There are many other people sitting as judges who have had links, including direct financial links, to organisations that come before them. They include those regularly instructed by the Government who have applied to belong to a Panel appointed by the Attorney-General to represent the Government. Many of those cases will be immigration cases. They are still eligible (and do) sit as part-time judges, including while being on the Attorney-General’s Panel. Members of the Supreme Court and other senior courts have served as ‘Treasury Devils’ where they have represented the Government on behalf of the Attorney-General. This role has historically been a recognised pathway to the senior judiciary. Many members of the Court have also engaged in charitable and public interest work, including in areas such as human rights. This outside experience informs rather than diminishes their standing. British justice and judges are rightly regarded as being amongst the finest in the world.
The Secretary of State for Justice on appointment is required to take an oath in which they must, “respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge [their] duty to ensure the provision of resources and the effective support of the courts for which [they] are responsible.” The use of part- time judges, and the independence of the judiciary and protection of the rule of law are all aspects of that solemn commitment.
The proposals to place judicial appointments under ministerial control would represent a significant departure from the principles of judicial independence established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The current system, administered by the Judicial Appointments Commission, ensures that judges are selected on merit through an independent and transparent process, free from political influence. Allowing a serving minister to determine judicial appointments risks politicising the judiciary, undermining public confidence in the courts’ impartiality, and eroding the long-established constitutionally important principle of the separation of powers that underpins the rule of law in this country. A judiciary perceived as beholden to political interests cannot command the trust necessary to administer justice fairly or to act as an effective check on executive power.
This statement deliberately is confined to the issues of principle, not any of the individual cases highlighted. There is a longstanding convention that judges do not comment to the press on cases that they have been involved in. To that extent, neither the individual barristers concerned or Garden Court Chambers are able to comment further on any particular case or individual. Any request for comment is to be directed to the Judicial Press Office.
Link to Bar Council Statement: “Vilifying lawyers puts them at risk”
