Supreme Court President refuses to rule out resignation if Boris Johnson attempts to politicize the judiciary

The President of the Supreme Court refused to exclude his resignation if Boris Johnson attempted to politicize the judiciary.

Lord Reed of Allermuir said it would be unacceptable for high-level judges to be subject to American-style confirmation hearings involving interrogation by politicians of their personal opinions on contentious issues.

The confirmation hearings are one of the reforms likely to be envisaged by the constitutional revision ordered by Mr. Johnson following his electoral victory.

The Committee on Democracy and Constitutional Rights has been viewed by some observers as an opportunity for the Prime Minister to take revenge on the Supreme Court following his humiliating decision that his suspension from Parliament last year was illegal .

Giving evidence to a parliamentary committee, Lord Reed rejected allegations that judges were engaged in a political takeover and said he saw no need for the commission to recommend substantial changes in the functioning courts.

Instead, he suggested that reviews should focus on developing written rules on government-parliament relations in order to avoid a repeat of the House of Commons tragedies. 39; last year on Brexit.

During his annual appearance before the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, Lord Reed was directly invited to resign from his post if a Prime Minister tried to politicize the judiciary.

He paused for a long time before responding: I would have to see exactly what is on offer.

Insisting on what would force him to resign, he said: The type of system they have in the United States would be unacceptable.

I know some of the judges who have gone through this process. It’s really intolerable.

Lord Reed said that a reform of the way judges are appointed to the Supreme Court could be beneficial, and expressed support for efforts to attract a more diverse range of judges.

But he said: My concern would be, if this is looked at and if alternatives are considered, that we maintain the main principle that the appointment is based on merit, as this is the key to the prestige of the court and of the preeminent role it is considered to have in the world of the common law, and also that we avoid that the political considerations of the parties play a role.

The court must maintain public confidence. It must also maintain the confidence of the opposition, which could be the government in the future. It is therefore very important that we are seen as politically neutral.

The Vice-President of the Courts, Lord Hodge, said to his peers: I am afraid that if we came down with something that seemed to be political confirmation and involved questioning our personal opinions, we would risk having judges who feel they have received a warrant to bring their personal opinions to the courtroom.

He added: There is a great danger that you will damage an institution that has an international reputation if you follow this path.

Asked whether the government plans to introduce confirmation hearings for judges, Johnson's official spokesperson said afterwards: "I am not aware of any plans in this area. We have repeatedly said that we fully respect the independence of the judiciary and have no plans and political appointments of judges.

Speaking to the committee, Lord Reed downplayed any suggestion that a review of the courts should take place as part of any constitutional reform.

He said: I do not see the courts as the main concern myself.

It seems to me that we have just gone through a period that has put our constitutional provisions under great pressure. There was a stress test on our constitution.

Although the decision made by the courts in the prorogation case was clearly not universally acclaimed, I do not think it revealed an inherent weakness in the courts. On the contrary, the reaction suggested the opposite.

It is a striking feature of our constitution as it depends on conventions and a kind of culture of shared assumptions about people's behavior.

It might be useful to have a little more writing than at present.

Citing the example of the 1994 Nolan Report on the Westminster Trail, which led to the establishment of a written set of standards for public life, Lord Reed said: There are still room for that.

He added: I think some of the tensions we have seen between government and Parliament could have been eased by clearer standards and better mechanisms to assess whether they have been met.

Lord Reed said that the review of committees should not assume that judges are willing to rule on political issues, adding: The real position is exactly the opposite.

The judges were careful to avoid getting lost in genuinely political matters, he said.

Should I see us playing the role of constitutional courts in other countries? It is not possible because we do not have the powers and we do not want to have them.

And in response to claims that the courts have pushed the limits of human rights protection, especially in immigration cases and allegations of war crimes by British troops, he said : We do not catch up as we go along. It is certainly true that many of the things we are currently considering would not have been reviewed by judges 100 years ago or even 50 years ago.

To some extent, it is because the government did not do these things 100 or 50 years ago. But it is also because Parliament has enacted many laws, notably the Human Rights Act and the European Communities Act, which have given the courts the duty to enforce laws that reflect a constitutional culture that is not traditional British constitutional culture.

Lord Reed added: If Parliament adopts the human rights law and it has binding effect to apply to British forces in Iraq, we must give effect to that. It is not a takeover of power on our part, but of the implementation of an approach to the convention (relating to human rights) decided by the Court and the Strasbourg Parliament.

He said that the Prime Minister's proposals to restrict the right to seek judicial review on the grounds that too many complaints were made for political reasons might be of concern to us, but that would depend on what they were.

Lord Reed told the committee that he expected the Supreme Court to be consulted on the work of the commissions, but that had not yet happened.