Law Society criticises comments on judiciary

The Law Society of Scotland has strongly responded to comments made by Robert Jenrick, the UK shadow justice secretary, at the Conservative Party's annual conference. Jenrick suggested a restoration of the Lord Chancellor's primacy in overseeing judicial appointments, stating that some judges are blurring the line “between adjudication and activism.” This rhetoric has sparked concern among legal professionals, who believe it threatens the independence of the judiciary.

Patricia Thom, President of the Law Society of Scotland, expressed her views firmly, saying "Robert Jenrick's comments about so-called 'activist' judges are dangerous and unacceptable. We strongly condemn such rhetoric, which appears designed to undermine the independence of the judiciary and its fundamental role in safeguarding our constitution." Her remarks highlight a growing unease regarding political interference in judicial matters.

Furthermore, Thom emphasised the responsibilities of politicians, indicating that they must "respect the role of judges in upholding the rule of law and interpreting legislation as passed by Parliament." Judges are expected to operate without political influence, and Thom pointed out that judicial appointments should be made free from such interference. She noted that "It is notable that Mr Jenrick has provided no legal basis for questioning the validity of judicial decisions with which he does not agree."

Moreover, she insisted on the impartiality required of judges, stating that "unlike politicians, members of the judiciary are expected to be strictly impartial when considering how the law should be applied, and also have no right of reply." This impartiality is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

Thom concluded her remarks by warning about the growing trend of dangerous rhetoric, pointing out that "such as this has sadly been on the increase for several years." She referenced international examples where undermining judicial independence has resulted in dire consequences for both democracy and the rule of law. As discussions surrounding the judiciary continue, the Law Society remains vigilant against any attempts to weaken its independence.