Ministers and judicial independence (Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s.3)
A government minister, who is not the Lord Chancellor, is concerned about a pending High Court case in which a government department is the defendant. He asks his private office to arrange a private telephone call with the judge hearing the case, so that he can explain the government's concerns about the possible consequences of a ruling against the department. He does not intend to threaten the judge.
Which of the following best describes the minister's proposed conduct?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer E: It would breach the minister's statutory duty not to seek to influence particular judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Ministers must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary and must not seek to influence particular judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary.
Ministers and judicial independence (Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s.3)
Section 3(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 requires the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers of the Crown and all with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary or the administration of justice to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. Section 3(5) imposes a particular duty for that purpose: the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers of the Crown must not seek to influence particular judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary. A private call to the judge hearing a pending case, to press the government's concerns about the outcome, is an attempt to influence a particular decision through special access. It does not matter that no threat is made, nor which channel is used to arrange the contact. The minister's proper course is to make any arguments openly, through the department's lawyers, as a party to the proceedings.
Why A is wrong: Section 3(5) prohibits seeking to influence particular decisions through special access, whether or not threats or inducements are used.
Why B is wrong: Judicial independence is guaranteed by statute: s.3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Why C is wrong: Section 3(1) and (5) apply to other Ministers of the Crown as well as the Lord Chancellor.
Why D is wrong: Routing the contact through another judge is still seeking to influence a particular decision through special access to the judiciary.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Using Hansard to interpret a statute: the conditions in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
Which of the following best describes the extent to which the court may consider this Parliamentary material?
Court of Appeal and its own previous decisions (Young v Bristol Aeroplane)
Which of the following best describes whether the Court of Appeal may decline to follow its 2019 decision?
Status of Privy Council decisions in the courts of England and Wales (Willers v Joyce)
Which of the following best describes how the High Court judge should proceed?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.