---

Independence of the Judiciary

Having spoken to many judges in my work as a Minister for my Department, I know that judges find such headlines threatening. We need to respond by assuring them that we and the public see that it is important that they should be able to get on with their work and make their judgments independently. As well as saying that—the hon. Gentleman talked about fine words—we have sought to enshrine it in legislation with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which hon. Members have mentioned. It is no bad thing that that Act received a great deal of input from the previous Lord Chief Justice and was the subject of many hours of debate in the House of Lords. Whatever its starting point, by the end of the debate many people had had an input. The Government did not claim to be the purveyor of all wisdom on the issue, and many people made a contribution. That is not a bad thing. The Act writes into statute, for the first time, a guarantee of judicial independence. Hon. Members will know that when judges take office they take an oath, which I know that they take seriously—as we all do. The oath is:"““I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.””" That is the task that they have to carry out, and they must be independent, irrespective of any criticisms of their judgments. That is sometimes difficult, and to that extent the Government are keen to support judges in the important role that they play. Where the Home Office is a party to a case, or a litigant, but loses the case that has been taken against it, it would obviously be right for it to consider whether to appeal. It will say, ““We don’t agree with this judgment. We’re a party to the case and we’ve put our argument in court, but the court has not agreed with it. We don’t agree with the court, so we’re off to the Court of Appeal.”” The Court of Appeal might not agree with the Home Office, and at that stage the Home Office can say, ““We don’t agree with the Court of Appeal either; we’ll see you in the House of Lords.”” We must be clear that, in cases where the Home Office is a party defending an action, there is no dishonour in it being a robust litigant.