Revise The judiciary – superior and inferior judges for Cambridge 9084 (1.3.1)

The judiciary in England and Wales is structured hierarchically. This distinction is based on the jurisdiction of the court, not the personal ability of the judge.

Superior Judges preside in the senior courts: the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the High Court (which has three divisions: King's Bench, Chancery, and Family). Their decisions often create binding precedents that shape the law for the entire country.

Inferior Judges operate in the lower courts, primarily the Crown Court and County Court. This group includes Circuit Judges, Recorders (part-time Circuit Judges), and District Judges. They handle over 95% of all legal cases, applying existing law and precedent to resolve disputes.

Prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, judicial appointments were made by the Lord Chancellor, a political figure. This led to accusations of political patronage. The CRA 2005 established the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), an independent body responsible for selecting candidates for judicial office in England and Wales. The JAC's core principle is appointment on merit. Selection is through open and fair competition. The JAC assesses candidates against five core qualities:

1. Intellectual capacity
2. Personal qualities (integrity, independence, etc.)
3. Ability to understand and deal fairly
4. Authority and communication skills
5. Efficiency.

While the JAC recommends candidates, the formal appointment is still made by the King on the advice of the Lord Chancellor or relevant minister, but they can only reject a JAC candidate with good reason.

Several senior judges have specific leadership responsibilities:

• The Lord Chief Justice (LCJ): The head of the judiciary of England and Wales. The LCJ is responsible for the welfare, training, and deployment of judges and represents the views of the judiciary to Parliament and ministers.
• The Master of the Rolls: The second most senior judge. They are the Head of Civil Justice and preside over the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).
• The President of the Supreme Court: The head of the UK's final court of appeal. They are responsible for the leadership and administration of the Supreme Court.
• Heads of Division: Each of the three divisions of the High Court (King's Bench, Chancery, Family) is led by a senior judge (e.g., President of the King's Bench Division).

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law, ensuring judges can decide cases impartially without fear or favour. Section 3 of the CRA 2005 places a legal duty on the Lord Chancellor and other ministers to uphold this independence. It is protected by several key mechanisms:

1. Security of Tenure

This means judges cannot be easily dismissed. The principle was first established in the Act of Settlement 1701.

• Superior judges hold office 'during good behaviour' and can only be removed by the monarch following a petition from both Houses of Parliament. This has never happened to an English High Court judge.
• Inferior judges can be dismissed by the Lord Chancellor, but only for incapacity or misbehaviour and with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice.

1. Immunity from Suit

Judges are protected from being sued in a civil case for any actions taken or decisions made in the course of their judicial duties. This was confirmed in cases like Sirros v Moore [1975]. This allows them to adjudicate freely without fear of personal liability or vexatious litigation from disgruntled parties. 3. Financial Security

Judges' salaries are determined by an independent body, the Senior Salaries Review Body. The salaries are paid from the Consolidated Fund, a government fund used for major state expenses. This means their salaries cannot be reduced or manipulated by the government as a way to exert pressure on them.

While independence is vital, judges must also be accountable for their conduct and decisions. Accountability is maintained through:

• The Appeals Process: If a party believes a judge has made an error of law, they can appeal the decision to a higher court. This is the primary way judicial decisions are scrutinised.
• The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO): Established in 2013, the JCIO investigates complaints about a judge's personal conduct (e.g., racism, falling asleep in court, inappropriate comments). It cannot investigate complaints about judicial decisions. If a complaint is upheld, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice can issue sanctions ranging from a formal warning to removal from office.
• Parliamentary Scrutiny: While MPs cannot criticise specific judicial decisions in Parliament (the sub judice rule), the judiciary as a whole is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chief Justice, who may be questioned by select committees on matters of judicial administration.