I’ve recently finished a very
good book called ‘The Rule of Law’ by Tom Bingham that sets out, in relatively
simple terms, what constitutes the RofL and the importance of a country abiding
by it if wants to be considered as a modern democratic nation.
Credit for coining the
expression ‘RofL’ is usually given to Professor A.V. Dicey from Oxford
university who used it in his book ‘An Introduction to the Study of the Law of
the Constitution’ in 1885.
The various elements that
make up the ‘RofL’ have evolved over time and are still being added today with
recent considerations being needed to cover modern day terrorism and the
sovereignty of Parliament over Brexit.
A point which I had not really focused on is the important part our judges play in interpreting the
law whenever disputes arise but that also begs the BIG question who polices the
judges?
One of the historic
milestones making up the Rule of Law is Sir Matthew Hale’s list of ‘Things
Necessary to be Continually had in Remembrance’. Hale was Chief Justice of the
King’s Bench from 1671 to 1676. His list runs to 18 points which all judges
should follow and point 10 particularly caught my eye as it states ‘ That I be
not biased with compassion to the poor, or favour to the rich in point of
justice’.
Recently I read a book
on the Jeremy Thorpe trial and in particular the outrageously biased summing up
by the Presiding Judge Joseph Cantley, who in his summing up roundly condemned
the prosecution witnesses and praised the defendants, while claiming not to
express an opinion! If you want to see Peter Cook at his lampooning best take a
look at this from his address, in 1979, to the Secret
Policeman's Ball in
aid of Amnesty International in which he ridicules Cantley’s summing up!
So the point of this post is
to emphasis the third part of our fourth demand ‘The People’s Consent’ which
would provide the means for the public to have their say at such blatant bias by a judge. In fact this demand would apply to any judge led Public
Enquiry that the public deemed to be a whitewash like the Chilcot and Hutton
reports.
Finally if so many politicians
want a second referendum then how about the people having their say on their
performance when they feel like it? Now that is how democracy should work and I
would find it hard to believe anyone would not agree?