Rethinking the Lord Chancellor’s role in judicial appointments*

IF 1.4 Q1 LAW Legal Ethics Pub Date : 2017-01-02 DOI:10.1080/1460728x.2017.1345085
G. Gee
{"title":"Rethinking the Lord Chancellor’s role in judicial appointments*","authors":"G. Gee","doi":"10.1080/1460728x.2017.1345085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The judicial appointments regime in England and Wales is unbalanced. The pre-2005 appointments regime conferred excessive discretion on the Lord Chancellor, but the post-2005 regime has gone much too far in the opposite direction. Today, the Lord Chancellor is almost entirely excluded from the process of selecting lower level judges and enjoys only limited say over the selection of senior judges. In this article I argue that the current regime places too little weight on the sound reasons for involving the minister in individual selection decisions, including the scope for ministerial input to enhance judicial independence, to supply political leadership on judicial diversity and to render more effective the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s systemic responsibility for the justice system as a whole. I argue that shortlists reconcile the need to more fully involve the Lord Chancellor whilst at the same time ensuring that candidates satisfy a merit threshold.","PeriodicalId":42194,"journal":{"name":"Legal Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":"20 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1460728x.2017.1345085","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2017.1345085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The judicial appointments regime in England and Wales is unbalanced. The pre-2005 appointments regime conferred excessive discretion on the Lord Chancellor, but the post-2005 regime has gone much too far in the opposite direction. Today, the Lord Chancellor is almost entirely excluded from the process of selecting lower level judges and enjoys only limited say over the selection of senior judges. In this article I argue that the current regime places too little weight on the sound reasons for involving the minister in individual selection decisions, including the scope for ministerial input to enhance judicial independence, to supply political leadership on judicial diversity and to render more effective the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s systemic responsibility for the justice system as a whole. I argue that shortlists reconcile the need to more fully involve the Lord Chancellor whilst at the same time ensuring that candidates satisfy a merit threshold.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考大法官在司法任命中的作用*
摘要英格兰和威尔士的司法任命制度不平衡。2005年前的任命制度赋予大法官过多的自由裁量权,但2005年后的任命制度在相反的方向上走得太远了。如今,大法官几乎完全被排除在挑选低级别法官的过程之外,对挑选高级法官的发言权有限。在这篇文章中,我认为现行制度对让部长参与个人选拔决定的合理理由重视太少,包括部长为提高司法独立性而投入的范围,在司法多样性方面提供政治领导,并使大法官更有效地履行对整个司法系统的系统性责任。我认为,入围名单调和了更充分地让大法官参与的必要性,同时确保候选人达到成绩门槛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Between Continuity and Change in the Italian Legal Profession – Boutique Law Firms as the Last Bastion of Professionalism Liberal egalitarianism and critical legal studies: articles of conciliation Consequentialism and problem of role morality in legal ethics Should judges be temperate in their speech? Loyalty to client, conviction, or constitution? The moral responsibility of public professionals under illiberal state pressures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1