Britain: An official handbook > 1956

BRITAIN: AN OFFICIAL HANDBOOK
78
to those conferred on them by statute, and if these powers are exceeded, the person
injured has his remedy in the High Court.
THE JUDICIARY
The judiciary of the United Kingdom is independent. That is to say, it is free to
administer the law under the protection of the law without fear or favour. All
judges, from those of the House of Lords and the Supreme Courts to the ‘lay’
magistrates or justices of the peace, must not only be, but must appear to be,
completely impartial, for it is of fundamental importance that ‘justice should not
ohly be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’.
The courts of the United Kingdom are the Queen’s Courts in that ‘ all jurisdiction
of the courts is either indirectly or immediately derived from the Crown’1; but
since the end of the seventeenth century it has been established that the executive
cannot disturb or delay the course of common justice, attempt to force the judges
to act otherwise than impartially, or use the prerogative powers of the Crown to
create courts to administer any system of law other than common law.
The independence of the judiciary vis-a-vis the legislature is likewise strictly
observed. Thus, although the Act of Settlement, 1701, laid down that the judges
of the superior courts should be appointed by the Crown to hold office during
good behaviour subject to a power of removal by the Sovereign on an address by
both Houses of Parliament, it may be stated with confidence that no such address
would ever be moved to interfere with judicial independence. Similarly, although
no court in the United Kingdom would ever question the validity of an Act of
Parliament which had been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament and duly
promulgated and published by the proper authority, it might, through its inter¬
pretation of the statute, come to a decision contrary to the policy of the Govern¬
ment which introduced the Act. In such a case, it would be open to the
Government to persuade Parliament to clarify or amend the statute, or even to pass
a new Act to reverse the decision of the court. It would not be open to it to
penalize the judge or to try to influence the court in any other way.
Administration of the Judicial System
There is no Minister of Justice in the United Kingdom. The central responsi¬
bility for the administration of the judicial system in England and Wales lies partly
with the Lord Chancellor and partly with the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister
is also concerned in that he is responsible for recommending to the Crown the
appointment of the Lord Justices of Appeal and that of the Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary (see pp. 73~74)-
Apart from the appointment of the Lord Justices of Appeal, Crown appoint¬
ments to the High Court bench are made on the recommendation of the Lord
Chancellor, who is also responsible for recommending to the Crown the appoint¬
ment or removal of justices of the peace, Recorders of boroughs and metropolitan
and stipendiary magistrates. County Court judges are appointed by the Lord
Chancellor (except in Lancashire, where they are nominated by the Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster).2 The administrative business of the Supreme Court of
Judicature and the appointment of court officials is partly in the hands of the Lord
Chancellor and partly in the hands of the appropriate judges. The Lord Chancellor
is a member of the Rule Committee which makes the rules of the Supreme Court;
1 Blackstone's Commentaries.
2 Under clause 21 of the Administration of Justice Bill, which received its second
reading in the House of Lords in November 1955, provision is made for the appointment
of county court judges by the Crown, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor or
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.