Lord Philips begins his speech by reminiscing to when he was a Lord Chief Justice.

There, he took an oath

to administer justice according to the law being as impartial as he can be. He states that impartiality in a
judge, one must be independent both personally and as a institutional body, and free of personal and
state (government) pressure.

The Commonwealth Heads of Gov’t in 2003, stated that all citizens should be given equal rights under
the law regardless of specific qualities such as race or religion and that those citizens should be given the
opportunity in carving society.

Lord Philips then mentions the rule of law as it is essential to the independence of the judiciary. The rule
of law cannot be specifically defined; however, it has been up to interpretation based on AV Dicey
principles, and his principled being further expounded on by Bingham. Rule of law aids in upholding the
executive by making sure their decisions are legal/lawful. Lord Philips then goes on to states that it is the
executive pressure that judges in particular need to be protected. This is because the executive has
much authority with regards to how individuals live their life and is the most frequent litigator in the
court system.

In some parts of the world, the courts are susceptible to bribery and fraud due to high corruption as in
Guyana.

Appointments

Appointment of judges is a key part in terms of institutional independence of the judiciary. The Latimer
House Guidelines states appointments at all levels should be made on merit, with appropriate provisions
for the progressive removal of gender imbalance and other historic factors of discrimination.

Before 2005, the Lord Chancellors made recommendations to the minister for suitable judges. Even
though these appointments were not essentially flawed, they were without a doubt influence by politics
as appointments made were predominantly white, male and from the upper class.

After the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor’s involvement was removed with regards
to appointments and an independent Judicial Appointments Commission was set up.

The CRA 2005 states clearly that the commission should give preference to the diversification in the
selection of appointments. However, diversification has been a very slow process as Lord Philips states
that there is only one woman and the rest men out of twelve members whom share similar
backgrounds. It is clear that there is need for an equal gender balance and ethnic mix in the judiciary
especially in senior appointments. However, the CRA requires that all appointments be based on merit
meaning on qualifications and if not qualification then based on personality.

Values that are important for being appointment in a senior position are such as extensive knowledge
and experience of the law, independence of the mind and integrity, clear thought process, working
under pressure, social awareness, ability to work with others, etc.
Lord Philips agrees with that the limited power of the Lord Chancellor is justifiable as the Gov’t of the
day would not want the Commission to appoint someone whom they have no confidence in.

Terms of Service

The Latimer House Guidelines provide that as a matter of principle, judiciary salaries and benefits should
be set by an independent body and their value should be maintained. This is to ensure that the judiciary
is institutionally independent and it would not lead to the Government influencing judges as the case
would more be if they were paying the judges.

Salaries are paid directly out of the Consolidated Fund.

The Supreme Court

The Gov’t decided to set up a new Supreme Court (final Court of Appeal) with the intention of it being
transparently independent. Lord Falconer stated the key objective is to achieve a full and transparent
separation between the judiciary and legislature. Lord Falconer hoped to achieve financial and
administrative independence through this initiative.

Lord Philips then begins to quote Lord Falconer stating that he said The Supreme Court will be an
independent statutory body responsible for appointing staff for its own administrative service which
would be headed by a chief executive free from any political interference. The chief would also be
answerable to the president of the Supreme Court rather than the Permanent Secretary. The President
and Chief Executive will work in conjunction to determine bids for resources according to the govt
spending review timescales which would then be handed to the minister who would put it in a separate
bid to be submitted to the treasury. The treasury would then scrutinize the bid and approve the
expenditure before putting it before the House of Commons.