1
00:00:02,590 --> 00:00:06,310
Hello. For those who don't know me, my name is Helen Manfield,

2
00:00:06,310 --> 00:00:13,960
I'm the principal at Mansfield College and I'm delighted to welcome you to this evening's Mansfield's Public Talk,

3
00:00:13,960 --> 00:00:19,150
which this evening is a conversation with Baroness Hale of Richmond.

4
00:00:19,150 --> 00:00:23,070
So welcome. I'd like to say welcome to Mansfield. Well, welcome to Zoom.

5
00:00:23,070 --> 00:00:32,140
Welcome to our Zoom Room. Baroness Hale is one of those people for whom she needs no introduction really isn't a cliche.

6
00:00:32,140 --> 00:00:36,550
She was the first and youngest woman on the law commission.

7
00:00:36,550 --> 00:00:41,560
She was the first and only woman lord of appeal in ordinary.

8
00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:48,280
When the final Court of Appeal was the House of Lords, she was the first and for many years the only woman on the Supreme Court.

9
00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:56,680
And she was until she retired in January this year, the first female president of the Supreme Court.

10
00:00:56,680 --> 00:01:03,520
And she's also, I'm very happy to say, an honorary fellow of Mansfield College, which is very welcome and very suitable,

11
00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:10,240
given that we are the home to the bone of our Institute of Human Rights and a fine statue of Eleanor Roosevelt,

12
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:16,720
which I look for to show you one day surrender. And I am also the second female QC to be head of house here.

13
00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:22,360
So I feel we have a fine tradition of women lawyers here.

14
00:01:22,360 --> 00:01:29,740
Very pleased that you've accepted that invitation. And Brendon, I really hope that the first time you speak here would be in person,

15
00:01:29,740 --> 00:01:34,510
but we are absolutely determined to get you here in the 100th year of women being

16
00:01:34,510 --> 00:01:38,770
admitted as lawyers and to as we fully matriculated members of the university,

17
00:01:38,770 --> 00:01:42,340
as well as our fortieth anniversary of women being admitted to Mansfield.

18
00:01:42,340 --> 00:01:49,360
So thank you for accepting that invitation. Thank you for making time for this conversation.

19
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:55,570
We used the title of Afia Hirsch's children's book about you equal to Everything as the title of this talk.

20
00:01:55,570 --> 00:02:01,330
And I know you are thinking about writing your memoirs in the middle of writing your memoirs.

21
00:02:01,330 --> 00:02:09,040
And I just wondered if we could start with a little bit of background and if you could tell us a little bit about your childhood, where you came from.

22
00:02:09,040 --> 00:02:16,930
Well, I came from a small village in what was then called the North Riding of Yorkshire.

23
00:02:16,930 --> 00:02:23,860
My father was headmaster of a small independent boys boarding school.

24
00:02:23,860 --> 00:02:31,990
So although I didn't go to a boy's boarding school, I did grow up in one or at least until the age of 13.

25
00:02:31,990 --> 00:02:35,620
When I was 13, my father died very suddenly.

26
00:02:35,620 --> 00:02:51,610
And so my mother picked us up, dusted off her teacher training qualifications because she had to give up teaching when she married my father in 1936,

27
00:02:51,610 --> 00:02:55,990
got herself a job as the head teacher of the local primary school.

28
00:02:55,990 --> 00:03:01,030
So we moved down the road and stayed in the same factory in the same village.

29
00:03:01,030 --> 00:03:07,870
And that was wonderful because it meant that my sister and I could continue to go to the same small,

30
00:03:07,870 --> 00:03:12,550
girls' high school in the nearby town of Richmond,

31
00:03:12,550 --> 00:03:22,120
the real Richmond, the original Richmond, after which all the other Richman's are directly or indirectly named.

32
00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:32,740
And it was a very so in many ways an idyllic childhood, but tinged with that great sadness in the middle of it.

33
00:03:32,740 --> 00:03:40,900
And I think you were one of three sisters, as you said, brought up in a boys school, state educated,

34
00:03:40,900 --> 00:03:50,500
I think hardly any if any of the rest of your colleagues were originally on the Supreme Court, but also brought up in a boarding school.

35
00:03:50,500 --> 00:03:57,460
I don't recall Lord Sumption said in his speech about what he called home truths about judicial diversity in 2012,

36
00:03:57,460 --> 00:04:03,400
that racial identity and gender aren't relevant to a candidate's ability to do a job.

37
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:08,020
And he said it's in fact part of the law of discrimination that they shouldn't be treated as relevant.

38
00:04:08,020 --> 00:04:15,460
And JCR president here, Bev Gilmore, who is a female lawyer, has asked me for your views on on that.

39
00:04:15,460 --> 00:04:22,590
Whether you do think that gender or I suppose family background or race or class are relevant the way that a judge thinks.

40
00:04:22,590 --> 00:04:32,280
Oh, that's a different question for and I thought you were going to ask me and I think I was going to ask you, I answer them both, please.

41
00:04:32,280 --> 00:04:42,460
Well, I thought I may not answer the first one. I thought you were going to ask me whether they were relevant to how judges are appointed.

42
00:04:42,460 --> 00:04:50,220
Well, the president actually asked me is whether they are relevant to how judges think.

43
00:04:50,220 --> 00:05:00,330
And I think that's an extremely interesting question about which a prominent pioneering women judges have often written,

44
00:05:00,330 --> 00:05:05,370
because I think most of us started off with the view that we're lawyers.

45
00:05:05,370 --> 00:05:12,240
The judges, in most cases, a as a famous American judge once put it,

46
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:21,030
a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion as her wise old man, which is probably the case.

47
00:05:21,030 --> 00:05:24,020
Wisdom being assumed, of course.

48
00:05:24,020 --> 00:05:34,520
But there are cases in which the experience of being a woman, which is necessarily different from the experience of being a man,

49
00:05:34,520 --> 00:05:42,550
brings an insight to the case that it's not a given that the man would have.

50
00:05:42,550 --> 00:05:46,960
Just as I'm sure the experience of being a man brings an insight to a case that it's not a given,

51
00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:52,690
that a woman would have that, and there are some obvious examples of that,

52
00:05:52,690 --> 00:06:04,120
the whole history of women who conceived children who they should never have conceived because of negligently performed sterilisations.

53
00:06:04,120 --> 00:06:13,910
For example, a woman looks upon that situation in a completely different way from the way that a man looks upon it, that that's an obvious example.

54
00:06:13,910 --> 00:06:19,150
But there are a woman looks at violence in a different way from the way that a man and a

55
00:06:19,150 --> 00:06:26,050
woman probably looks at consent to sexual activity in a different way and so on and so forth.

56
00:06:26,050 --> 00:06:38,560
So over the years, there have been quite a few cases where I probably looked at it in a different way from some of my colleagues.

57
00:06:38,560 --> 00:06:45,750
But I was often able to persuade my colleagues to look at it in the same way that I did.

58
00:06:45,750 --> 00:06:51,060
Well, that's interesting, isn't it? I think obviously women don't think the same, all men don't think the same.

59
00:06:51,060 --> 00:06:59,950
But maybe an aspect of wisdom is thinking about what you don't know or you haven't got experience or from what you might need to imagine or ask about.

60
00:06:59,950 --> 00:07:03,750
And that may be an argument for judicial diversity.

61
00:07:03,750 --> 00:07:11,280
So, I mean, aside from being a, you know, a woman and a state educated education, all those other things,

62
00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:18,180
you also had a rather unconventional route to being a judge in that you proprietory principally was as an academic, rather.

63
00:07:18,180 --> 00:07:22,770
I know you were a member of the bar, but not a bar maid. But no,

64
00:07:22,770 --> 00:07:34,050
but I just wonder whether you think that academic and practising lawyers think differently about the law having quite a long experience of them both.

65
00:07:34,050 --> 00:07:43,410
I'm. Yes, probably, although I think it's appellate level, there may not be that much difference,

66
00:07:43,410 --> 00:07:51,440
particularly when you get to a House of Lords or Supreme Court level, because at that stage we are thinking about.

67
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:55,580
Contested points of law, of general public importance,

68
00:07:55,580 --> 00:08:03,140
and so academics think about contested points of law and the judges are having to think about contested points of law.

69
00:08:03,140 --> 00:08:17,030
So I'm not sure that it's so different then. But I do you remember that wonderful phrase that Stephen Sedley used about advocates?

70
00:08:17,030 --> 00:08:24,590
That advocates were brilliant at reasoning from a given conclusion, yeah.

71
00:08:24,590 --> 00:08:29,810
Yes, and obviously it makes sense when you think about it as an advocate.

72
00:08:29,810 --> 00:08:35,360
And after all, you've been an advocate for most of your professional life.

73
00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:42,980
Yes, very long time. You work out what the results, the best results that you can get for your client,

74
00:08:42,980 --> 00:08:47,390
that you reconcile your client to what is the best result the court can reasonably hope for.

75
00:08:47,390 --> 00:08:51,230
And then you work out how to persuade the court to that result.

76
00:08:51,230 --> 00:08:58,100
So you start from the conclusion and that's the point that Stevens actually was making anyway.

77
00:08:58,100 --> 00:08:59,210
But of course, as a judge,

78
00:08:59,210 --> 00:09:06,740
you shouldn't start from the conclusion you should start at the beginning with the evidence or with the facts as found by the trial judge

79
00:09:06,740 --> 00:09:17,490
with the legal materials that help with the legal principles that guide you and you reason to the conclusion you don't read from it.

80
00:09:17,490 --> 00:09:23,030
Of course you do. Then have to check the conclusion that it's not absolutely absurd or ridiculous or whatever.

81
00:09:23,030 --> 00:09:30,320
I think I think that has to be a reality check at the end, nor do I think that all judges actually do that.

82
00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:34,490
But I've no doubt that that's what we should do.

83
00:09:34,490 --> 00:09:45,710
And to that extent, there may be a difference in the way that people with an academic training and people with a an advocate training approach,

84
00:09:45,710 --> 00:09:51,510
the resolution of legal problems. I'm not talking about fact finding that's a different issue.

85
00:09:51,510 --> 00:09:56,960
OK, so now I'm going to ask you at least a variant on the question you thought I was going to ask you, Paul,

86
00:09:56,960 --> 00:10:03,560
which is we do have on the Supreme Court effectively reserved place for a Northern Irish judge and a Scottish judge,

87
00:10:03,560 --> 00:10:13,910
because those are different legal systems in some respects. Do you think our higher judiciary would be stronger if there were more established routes

88
00:10:13,910 --> 00:10:20,820
to appointment for people with more diverse legal and perhaps personal backgrounds?

89
00:10:20,820 --> 00:10:39,030
Well, I think that the route that we've got at the moment is capable of identifying outstanding judicial ability wherever it may be found.

90
00:10:39,030 --> 00:10:41,100
I think it is capable of doing that.

91
00:10:41,100 --> 00:10:48,930
Whether it actually does is another matter, but it's a great deal better at it than our previous system of judicial appointments,

92
00:10:48,930 --> 00:10:53,280
which was the traditional tap on the shoulder.

93
00:10:53,280 --> 00:11:02,040
This is not to denigrate the people who benefited from the tap on the shoulder approach because they were mostly highly meritorious people.

94
00:11:02,040 --> 00:11:12,240
And I have to confess that I benefited from the tap on the shoulder system for the first four of my judicial, my six judicial appointments.

95
00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:25,770
But but the problem with it is you have to know whose shoulders to tap and you tend to be guided by rules of thumb about whose shoulders and boy,

96
00:11:25,770 --> 00:11:29,760
oh, boy, the occasional girl network in knowing that.

97
00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:38,550
Whereas if you've got an open and transparent appointment system where people have to apply, they have to measure themselves against criteria.

98
00:11:38,550 --> 00:11:43,350
They have to prove demonstrate that they meet those criteria.

99
00:11:43,350 --> 00:11:48,330
But then you are likely to be able to attract from a wider pool.

100
00:11:48,330 --> 00:11:53,250
And this is happening. This is undoubtedly happening since we went over to that sort of system.

101
00:11:53,250 --> 00:11:59,940
You've still got the assumptions about who is going to be best, which sort of judging job.

102
00:11:59,940 --> 00:12:09,420
And those traditional assumptions are quite hard to counteract, largely because their unspoken.

103
00:12:09,420 --> 00:12:15,450
Well, I was going to ask you about that. I remember you said somewhere where you wrote it,

104
00:12:15,450 --> 00:12:23,220
but I remember finding it moving because it resonated with something I've seen happen to people in the legal profession and in the judiciary.

105
00:12:23,220 --> 00:12:29,670
Sometimes, I think, but also actually to an extent, is one of the things that worries me about elite universities.

106
00:12:29,670 --> 00:12:36,960
If they broaden their access, which we really want them to do, it's not just about access, it's about broadening the voices that are heard.

107
00:12:36,960 --> 00:12:42,630
And what you mentioned was the story of The Little Mermaid that you can to be so desperately

108
00:12:42,630 --> 00:12:48,900
accepted that you will cut off your feet and mute your voice and just try to be one of the boys,

109
00:12:48,900 --> 00:12:57,780
I suppose. And you said you were determined not to be. But I have seen people who I think there's always another route to promotion or acceptance.

110
00:12:57,780 --> 00:13:01,620
And after all, you need acceptance in that small establishment.

111
00:13:01,620 --> 00:13:07,980
And I just want to ask you about getting underrepresented voices heard in the establishment,

112
00:13:07,980 --> 00:13:11,820
not just getting underrepresented people into the establishment, but getting those perspectives heard.

113
00:13:11,820 --> 00:13:14,370
What do you think we can do about that?

114
00:13:14,370 --> 00:13:30,570
I think we have to acknowledge that it's a good thing to do, that it's not only a diversity of gender, ethnicity, background, professional background,

115
00:13:30,570 --> 00:13:38,100
and the diversity of professional backgrounds will bring with it a much greater diversity of socioeconomic origins,

116
00:13:38,100 --> 00:13:46,800
because obviously, once we get where we are, we're all middle class by definition, but it will bring with it.

117
00:13:46,800 --> 00:13:54,210
But diversity of thinking patterns is also pretty important.

118
00:13:54,210 --> 00:14:00,480
Diversity of ways of looking at how you confront a legal problem.

119
00:14:00,480 --> 00:14:08,850
And that is something that was acknowledged by that great judge, Benjamin Cardozo in the 1920s.

120
00:14:08,850 --> 00:14:18,180
Another thing that I'm frequently quoting at a time when all the judges were white men in the United States,

121
00:14:18,180 --> 00:14:28,320
that he was he was saying out of the attrition of diverse minds is built something stronger than the individual parts.

122
00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:33,030
And I believe that in a collective collegiate court,

123
00:14:33,030 --> 00:14:41,340
it ought to be stronger for the diversity of views around the table when you're hammering, not the answer.

124
00:14:41,340 --> 00:14:50,100
And that is just as valid. But when we no longer are all white men as it was when they were all white men.

125
00:14:50,100 --> 00:14:50,910
So, yes,

126
00:14:50,910 --> 00:15:00,510
we've got to be open to that and we've got to have an appointments process which is open to that and open to recognising that I'm not running.

127
00:15:00,510 --> 00:15:06,540
It's appreciation of people's qualities on tramlines.

128
00:15:06,540 --> 00:15:13,100
Yeah. And I wonder how we I mean, we get people to.

129
00:15:13,100 --> 00:15:20,360
I guess the question, their own concepts of merit, I, I know I saw and it made me laugh.

130
00:15:20,360 --> 00:15:22,970
And the first hundred years project you were talking about,

131
00:15:22,970 --> 00:15:27,380
having been at Cambridge when there are only three women's colleges and the women are feeling very

132
00:15:27,380 --> 00:15:32,220
lucky to be in Cambridge and some of the men just feeling they're entitled to be at Cambridge.

133
00:15:32,220 --> 00:15:37,610
And you said that there's the sorts of people you want to punch in the face and obviously you didn't punch them in the face.

134
00:15:37,610 --> 00:15:43,380
And I just want a more productive way of getting them to take you and your worthiness seriously.

135
00:15:43,380 --> 00:15:53,150
But I just wonder how people deal with or face down people with a sense of entitlement which perhaps blinds them to one's own merit,

136
00:15:53,150 --> 00:15:56,270
which is a pretty dispiriting thing to happen. It is.

137
00:15:56,270 --> 00:16:05,450
And unfortunately, of course, the people I were talking about were just fellow students that, you know, you could you could beat them.

138
00:16:05,450 --> 00:16:16,610
And it's important. So to do I feel sure that it's not as strong a phenomenon now for your students as it was when I was at Cambridge,

139
00:16:16,610 --> 00:16:26,510
which is, after all, a very long time ago. But there will be people who went to certain schools or came from certain sorts of backgrounds

140
00:16:26,510 --> 00:16:33,680
who will take it for granted that that if they work hard enough and are bright enough,

141
00:16:33,680 --> 00:16:43,220
they will get a place at a university where there are people who are just as hard and are just as bright,

142
00:16:43,220 --> 00:16:47,180
who certainly do not take it for granted that they were better placed to lead a university.

143
00:16:47,180 --> 00:16:51,950
Quite the reverse that one of your problems, as I understand it,

144
00:16:51,950 --> 00:17:04,220
is persuading those young people to think of coming to Oxford or Cambridge to think of Oxford or Cambridge as a place where they might like to be,

145
00:17:04,220 --> 00:17:14,990
because so many seem to be put off by their schools or their fellow students from from thinking that it is a place that they might like to be.

146
00:17:14,990 --> 00:17:18,260
I don't know if that's a phenomenon that you encounter.

147
00:17:18,260 --> 00:17:25,610
I mean, well, in Mansfield, we broadly reflect the educational backgrounds of people in people with our home students.

148
00:17:25,610 --> 00:17:29,090
But obviously it is an issue to make sure that people don't feel well.

149
00:17:29,090 --> 00:17:32,630
I would be uncomfortable. I would be with people who would put me down.

150
00:17:32,630 --> 00:17:38,030
Why would I bother? And I was going to ask that because I think you certainly were perceived by mind,

151
00:17:38,030 --> 00:17:45,920
my saying so by women at the bar as a person, you were not allowed to put her up.

152
00:17:45,920 --> 00:17:51,830
You were somebody who supported other women at the bar. And I do remember a long time ago,

153
00:17:51,830 --> 00:17:59,240
and I was quite a junior lawyer speaking at an international judicial seminar where I was very nervous as much as everyone else.

154
00:17:59,240 --> 00:18:04,790
And I remember you nodding and then in the ladies lawyers afterwards washing your hands and saying, yeah, that's very interesting.

155
00:18:04,790 --> 00:18:08,800
And it was nice of you to not you know, everyone needs someone who knows who you knew.

156
00:18:08,800 --> 00:18:12,290
You knew that that was quite an intimidating environment to be in.

157
00:18:12,290 --> 00:18:18,510
And I just wonder what judges in general and these men and women, but what judges in general can do to.

158
00:18:18,510 --> 00:18:22,820
Yes, in a way, then they ask questions or the way that they interrogated argument,

159
00:18:22,820 --> 00:18:27,650
which obviously has to be rigorous, but which makes people feel listened to and worth listening to.

160
00:18:27,650 --> 00:18:34,920
Yes. Well, of course, one's got to try and do that, of course. And.

161
00:18:34,920 --> 00:18:40,050
If I have been able to do it, I'm sure I have been beastly to people as well without me.

162
00:18:40,050 --> 00:18:47,520
I don't mean to be beastly, but I'm sure some of the things that I have said to counsel will be perceived as being beastly,

163
00:18:47,520 --> 00:18:56,310
certainly not as kind as they had hoped that I would be. But I think if I have been able to try and get counsel to give her that best,

164
00:18:56,310 --> 00:18:59,970
because that's what you want, you know, you don't want to intimidate them.

165
00:18:59,970 --> 00:19:06,080
You want them to do a good job because that's the that's the job that's going to help you as a judge.

166
00:19:06,080 --> 00:19:07,530
That's the way I look at it. Yeah.

167
00:19:07,530 --> 00:19:18,300
But I think my background of 18 years trying to get the best out of a bright young students might just have contributed towards that in a way.

168
00:19:18,300 --> 00:19:24,480
You know, can I move on to a slightly tangential but maybe related question?

169
00:19:24,480 --> 00:19:30,330
One of the things that I know you were interested in your judicial career, and I'm thinking of cases like the case.

170
00:19:30,330 --> 00:19:34,320
And I think the House of Lords is.

171
00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:43,060
Getting people's voices and perspectives taken into account in litigation who might not have been saved for people who are not lawyers,

172
00:19:43,060 --> 00:19:54,880
Ian is in Tanzania. It was a case about whether the best interests of the child were taken into account in mitigation.

173
00:19:54,880 --> 00:20:01,600
And I, Z8, Tanzanite, Z8, Soraya's and my my acronyms are going,

174
00:20:01,600 --> 00:20:09,550
but I also remember in the GFX case where which was started when a child was about nine or 10,

175
00:20:09,550 --> 00:20:14,410
and by the time it got to the Supreme Court, the child was about 12.

176
00:20:14,410 --> 00:20:17,500
And you asked where was the witness statement from the child?

177
00:20:17,500 --> 00:20:24,070
And we had to scurry around and get one because everyone had run this case through the parents who were running the case on the child's behalf.

178
00:20:24,070 --> 00:20:29,650
And you said, I'm interested in what the child mouthy child thinks. Now he's 12. And it was a salutary lesson, really.

179
00:20:29,650 --> 00:20:33,040
And I just what do you think's happened?

180
00:20:33,040 --> 00:20:40,660
Do you think that's a general shift in the way that courts have operated, that they think they ought to think about whose perspectives are relevant?

181
00:20:40,660 --> 00:20:45,680
I hope so, especially children. I mean,

182
00:20:45,680 --> 00:20:55,610
one of the cases that really shocked me very early on in the House of Lords was the case that we had about whether parents and as their surrogates,

183
00:20:55,610 --> 00:21:06,620
teachers should be free to impose corporal punishment on children in independent faith schools.

184
00:21:06,620 --> 00:21:15,380
And so it was all argued on the basis of the religious freedom of the parents.

185
00:21:15,380 --> 00:21:19,460
There was no intervention from any child's rights organisation.

186
00:21:19,460 --> 00:21:24,110
There was no perception that this was actually a case that was as much about

187
00:21:24,110 --> 00:21:28,250
the rights of the child and children involved as it was about the parents.

188
00:21:28,250 --> 00:21:42,110
And so I said so. And I think these days it would be definitely looked on much more as a children's rights issue as well as a parental freedom issue.

189
00:21:42,110 --> 00:21:45,540
So I think we have moved on quite a bit.

190
00:21:45,540 --> 00:21:53,000
And if I have done anything to contribute to that, moving on, well, then I shall feel very pleased about that.

191
00:21:53,000 --> 00:21:59,210
I should add mean one of one of the other things that happened over the course of my

192
00:21:59,210 --> 00:22:03,500
career as a barrister was a real opening up of who could appear in front of courts.

193
00:22:03,500 --> 00:22:08,630
You know, there was really real anxiety about standing for pressure group to bring a case at all.

194
00:22:08,630 --> 00:22:15,350
You know, I recall a case early in my career when the Child Poverty Action Group or case that affected hundreds of thousands of people,

195
00:22:15,350 --> 00:22:18,840
but no one of them could have got legal aid because it was only worth about eight pounds a week.

196
00:22:18,840 --> 00:22:27,050
It was about winter fuel allowance. And the big exciting issue was that child poverty action was allowed to argue the case.

197
00:22:27,050 --> 00:22:31,520
Excuse me, my phone is ringing. Really? Just let me tell them to go away.

198
00:22:31,520 --> 00:22:41,630
Yes. Yes. Hello, I'm sorry, I'm on a zoom call, I can't talk to you now, but there we go.

199
00:22:41,630 --> 00:22:46,220
I can't do anything about that because that's where the phone is and it doesn't matter.

200
00:22:46,220 --> 00:22:55,220
And the yes is so much broader approach to who can bring a case as important to the court, much broader approach,

201
00:22:55,220 --> 00:22:59,890
as you said, to people who can intervene in cases often three or four interveners in cases in the Supreme Court.

202
00:22:59,890 --> 00:23:04,520
Well, maybe not often, but occasionally three or four intervene in a case in the Supreme Court.

203
00:23:04,520 --> 00:23:14,450
And obviously that does mean that the court can get evidence of the wider implications of decision they're going to take.

204
00:23:14,450 --> 00:23:21,800
But I just wonder if you think it may be dangerous for courts to try to do that, sort of taking into account of wider interests,

205
00:23:21,800 --> 00:23:27,110
as it were, being a balancer of interests rather than the government executive doing that?

206
00:23:27,110 --> 00:23:30,290
I just want to that's part of the reason that courts get criticised.

207
00:23:30,290 --> 00:23:36,650
Well, it may be part of the reason the courts get criticised, but it depends on the type of issue that it is.

208
00:23:36,650 --> 00:23:45,500
But if it's the type of issue that involves the balancing of different interests and there are a lot of cases that involve the balancing

209
00:23:45,500 --> 00:23:55,520
of different interests and individual interests against the whole community or different groups within the community against one another.

210
00:23:55,520 --> 00:24:04,490
There are many such cases in which case it is useful to have a broader perspective than the one the litigants bring to it,

211
00:24:04,490 --> 00:24:11,630
particularly in public law cases. Private law cases are a bit different, but the litigants may be bringing their particular perspective.

212
00:24:11,630 --> 00:24:16,130
But actually, if they succeed in persuading the court of their perspective,

213
00:24:16,130 --> 00:24:22,400
that may have knock on effects for others which are not so good in the balance.

214
00:24:22,400 --> 00:24:32,750
So. I sometimes we did get worried that the intervenors were all wanting to pile in on

215
00:24:32,750 --> 00:24:40,190
the same side as the person who is against the government or the public authority.

216
00:24:40,190 --> 00:24:49,550
And that's one reason why we tried to exert a bit more discipline amongst ourselves about how many interveners we

217
00:24:49,550 --> 00:24:56,330
allowed because we didn't want it to look like everybody ganging up on the government or the public authority.

218
00:24:56,330 --> 00:25:03,500
But we are still alive to the varying perspectives on the same problem that different groups can bring.

219
00:25:03,500 --> 00:25:10,550
So you have to try and try and see what can they add that's not going to be there if they're not there.

220
00:25:10,550 --> 00:25:20,000
And sometimes, of course, the government intervenes in cases that involve a public authority that isn't the government.

221
00:25:20,000 --> 00:25:24,740
You can sometimes have the government intervening and.

222
00:25:24,740 --> 00:25:34,730
They intervene in order to promote government policy against sometimes what the public authority wants to do.

223
00:25:34,730 --> 00:25:42,760
And so to give the example of the actual case, which was all about the meaning of violence.

224
00:25:42,760 --> 00:25:51,910
Most of the arguments in favour of a broader definition of violence actually came from the government department,

225
00:25:51,910 --> 00:25:59,110
which intervened in the case because that was their policy and they wanted to persuade the court that it was also the law.

226
00:25:59,110 --> 00:26:03,190
So the government is sometimes on the side of the angels.

227
00:26:03,190 --> 00:26:12,700
Let us not forget that. But I mean, I think that quite a lot of law students on this call, I just wonder what you think is useful,

228
00:26:12,700 --> 00:26:17,920
because I've always been conscious if I've been doing an intervention that's saying me too.

229
00:26:17,920 --> 00:26:22,540
Doesn't really help in court. Quite annoying. So you have to try and think of a different perspective.

230
00:26:22,540 --> 00:26:26,020
But without trying to argue the case, you might have argued if you were running it.

231
00:26:26,020 --> 00:26:35,960
It's quite a delicate balance. And I just wonder if you have any thoughts that might help people in what is a useful intervention.

232
00:26:35,960 --> 00:26:42,170
Well, it is. Something that you used to do quite a lot.

233
00:26:42,170 --> 00:26:55,490
It is useful to have the broad human rights or international context, even if it's not going to add anything hugely decisive to the argument.

234
00:26:55,490 --> 00:27:01,160
Nevertheless, it doesn't ever want to put the the argument in its broader context.

235
00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:10,460
And I think that that is that is useful. I'm not sure that all my colleagues thought it was useful, but I thought it was useful.

236
00:27:10,460 --> 00:27:21,920
I think some of the most useful ones are from sort of associations of people with the particular problem who can

237
00:27:21,920 --> 00:27:30,950
then bring more evidence about how the problem affects those people than the evidence in the individual case.

238
00:27:30,950 --> 00:27:36,230
I was thinking about some of the disability cases.

239
00:27:36,230 --> 00:27:47,000
They can be benefited by having evidence of how this particular problem impacts upon disabled people generally,

240
00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:53,480
or a particular type of disabled person who isn't the same type of disabled person as the one we got before the court, that sort of thing.

241
00:27:53,480 --> 00:28:01,490
Yes. And I think of case the student loans case to we're just looking to vent.

242
00:28:01,490 --> 00:28:06,860
And I thought that I would intervene in that case, but I did really useful context to the case.

243
00:28:06,860 --> 00:28:13,190
Yes, that's right. That's a good example of context rather than a differential impact.

244
00:28:13,190 --> 00:28:17,680
But it was definitely a good example of context. Yeah, yeah.

245
00:28:17,680 --> 00:28:28,940
And can I just move on to the controversy that is ongoing at the moment about the role of the Supreme Court?

246
00:28:28,940 --> 00:28:36,770
I just wonder if you think the role of the Supreme Court did change in comparison with the judicial committee of the House of Lords?

247
00:28:36,770 --> 00:28:41,690
No exception. Of course, it didn't change.

248
00:28:41,690 --> 00:28:43,730
The jurisdiction was the same.

249
00:28:43,730 --> 00:28:52,430
The only difference in the jurisdiction was the devolution issues came from the judicial committee of the Privy Council to the Supreme Court,

250
00:28:52,430 --> 00:28:56,660
which is obviously where they they ought to be. It's the Supreme Court with the whole United Kingdom.

251
00:28:56,660 --> 00:29:03,800
And so deciding whether the devolved institutions have acted within their powers is obviously a role for that's that court.

252
00:29:03,800 --> 00:29:10,100
But that's the only change in the jurisdiction, the types of cases that we chose to do,

253
00:29:10,100 --> 00:29:14,120
or exactly the same as the cases that we did in the House of Lords.

254
00:29:14,120 --> 00:29:18,740
And the way that we did them was the same as in the House of Lords.

255
00:29:18,740 --> 00:29:25,940
There were a lot of external things that changed, like filming and broadcasting our processes,

256
00:29:25,940 --> 00:29:35,120
much greater accessibility to the building, a much more user friendly building and greater outreach attempt.

257
00:29:35,120 --> 00:29:44,000
And and we were able to make our judgements more accessible and useful, I think,

258
00:29:44,000 --> 00:29:50,990
than they had been when they were governed by the rules in the with the procedure of the House of Lords.

259
00:29:50,990 --> 00:29:59,660
But that is a I don't say frills, but the mechanics, the substance of what we did was exactly the same.

260
00:29:59,660 --> 00:30:08,250
And I don't think that we took any different view of what our role was when we were in the Supreme Court, from how we were in the House of Lords.

261
00:30:08,250 --> 00:30:14,540
And there's actually no evidence that we did. But I mean, there is a perception and it's not a perception I share,

262
00:30:14,540 --> 00:30:22,550
but there is a perception and it's very broadly expressed in certain sections of the press, at least naturally in certain sections of academic life,

263
00:30:22,550 --> 00:30:29,150
that by moving across Parliament Square or perhaps because of the devolution settlements and the Human Rights Act,

264
00:30:29,150 --> 00:30:33,410
or perhaps because of your perception of yourselves. But for some reason,

265
00:30:33,410 --> 00:30:42,200
the judges have become more activist and are more activist and are taking on making

266
00:30:42,200 --> 00:30:49,820
social policy judgements in a way that some people criticise as undemocratic. And I just wonder why why you think that such as a result?

267
00:30:49,820 --> 00:31:02,030
Because anything in it there are that you have said so many things that each of which would require a whole seminar to start talking about the.

268
00:31:02,030 --> 00:31:16,620
Undoubtedly. Both devolution and the Human Rights Act required a different role of, well, devolution of the Supreme Court.

269
00:31:16,620 --> 00:31:24,090
Well, actually, of course, most devolution cases come up through the ordinary courts in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

270
00:31:24,090 --> 00:31:32,880
So a different role of the court because of the different constitutional settlement, the Human Rights Act,

271
00:31:32,880 --> 00:31:37,920
that required a different role of all courts, not just the Supreme Court of all courts.

272
00:31:37,920 --> 00:31:43,860
It required everybody who had to decide whether there had been a breach of the convention rights,

273
00:31:43,860 --> 00:31:48,500
had to do it in accordance with the the the Human Rights Act.

274
00:31:48,500 --> 00:31:57,000
So those things have changed the role of the courts in relation to, in one case,

275
00:31:57,000 --> 00:32:03,240
the devolved institutions, in the other case, the public authorities generally.

276
00:32:03,240 --> 00:32:06,120
But that's nothing to do with the creation of the Supreme Court.

277
00:32:06,120 --> 00:32:14,330
It was the same role, the biggest cases in relation to the human rights that were all decided by the House of Lords.

278
00:32:14,330 --> 00:32:25,950
Yeah. I said, so I do find this whole argument very puzzling because.

279
00:32:25,950 --> 00:32:37,860
I find it difficult to see what the demonstrable proof of greater judicial activism

280
00:32:37,860 --> 00:32:47,010
in these are in areas which the court can't avoid deciding that is there we go.

281
00:32:47,010 --> 00:32:53,820
Yeah, but there was a series of cases where this was expressed in some sections of the press.

282
00:32:53,820 --> 00:33:01,380
But clearly the big ones that the big blow up of this sort of language was the description of the judiciary,

283
00:33:01,380 --> 00:33:04,770
the divisional court actually as enemies of the people in the first Miller case

284
00:33:04,770 --> 00:33:11,280
and then some of the criticism of the role judges took in the second case,

285
00:33:11,280 --> 00:33:18,370
the prorogation case, and someone Joel Busca has just thanked you for talks.

286
00:33:18,370 --> 00:33:24,090
It's very insightful, but asked about your perspective on whether there are some things that are too political,

287
00:33:24,090 --> 00:33:29,310
that courts shouldn't decide if they have big policy consequences.

288
00:33:29,310 --> 00:33:35,820
And he talked about the Scalia approach in the American Supreme Court about judges

289
00:33:35,820 --> 00:33:42,960
being perceived to hijack questions that should really be determined by the electorate. Oh, Helen, you keep on asking me about three questions.

290
00:33:42,960 --> 00:33:48,350
Sorry, I know. I therefore have to try and segregate them.

291
00:33:48,350 --> 00:33:59,950
Sorry. Yes, I do. There is a difference between a political question and a policy question.

292
00:33:59,950 --> 00:34:11,140
A political question is one which only politicians should decide, and there are plenty of those, plenty of them.

293
00:34:11,140 --> 00:34:19,690
And generally speaking, in public or until the Human Rights Act and to some extent, EU law.

294
00:34:19,690 --> 00:34:24,790
There was a big distinction between the question of legality,

295
00:34:24,790 --> 00:34:34,420
I don't mean in the technical sense lawfulness on the question of policy and the courts dealing with judicial

296
00:34:34,420 --> 00:34:44,440
review cases were very alive to the fact that their role was not to adjudicate on questions of policy.

297
00:34:44,440 --> 00:34:48,730
But once you have the to some extent EU law,

298
00:34:48,730 --> 00:34:58,820
because questions of proportionality come into EU law and also under the Human Rights Act, that the court.

299
00:34:58,820 --> 00:35:07,730
Is judging whether what a public authority has done is compatible with the convention rights,

300
00:35:07,730 --> 00:35:15,590
the convention rights, some of them draw a try and achieve a balance,

301
00:35:15,590 --> 00:35:23,330
a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the community or certain interests in the community.

302
00:35:23,330 --> 00:35:32,840
And that can involve one in looking at what would previously been regarded as policy questions.

303
00:35:32,840 --> 00:35:45,320
But that's to give policy a very broad definition and not confuse it with things that only politicians should decide.

304
00:35:45,320 --> 00:35:50,910
One of the things that comes into that is that.

305
00:35:50,910 --> 00:35:54,690
Although in a human rights challenge,

306
00:35:54,690 --> 00:36:04,590
the courts are not bound to accept the balance drawn by the political decision makers, they're not bound to accept it.

307
00:36:04,590 --> 00:36:19,680
Nevertheless, we do take very seriously the greater competence that institutionally and personally that they may have in order to draw that balance.

308
00:36:19,680 --> 00:36:27,600
If you think of the case about the Iranian dissident and the parliamentarians, politicians,

309
00:36:27,600 --> 00:36:36,300
loads of them who wanted her to come to this country so that they could have a discussion with her in the Palace of Westminster,

310
00:36:36,300 --> 00:36:43,290
and the home secretary said, no, I've taken the advice of the Foreign Office or foreign secretary,

311
00:36:43,290 --> 00:36:49,300
and the foreign secretary thinks it will do too much damage to our.

312
00:36:49,300 --> 00:36:55,480
Fragile but essential, I think, with the world's relations with Iran, if we let this woman come to this country.

313
00:36:55,480 --> 00:37:03,900
So no now one could have deep reservations about that.

314
00:37:03,900 --> 00:37:11,260
That balance as to whether it really was a good enough reason to interfere with the freedom of expression,

315
00:37:11,260 --> 00:37:16,060
rights of both the parliamentarians and the Iranian dissident.

316
00:37:16,060 --> 00:37:24,520
But the majority of us were prepared to accept that the government was better able to judge that than we were.

317
00:37:24,520 --> 00:37:32,080
And there are plenty of examples like that. So who's the best judge of this particular issue is one thing.

318
00:37:32,080 --> 00:37:36,790
Whether we have got the jurisdiction to do it is another thing.

319
00:37:36,790 --> 00:37:45,220
Do you think it is just a question of the way that Parliament has chosen to legislate by having a European Communities Act and

320
00:37:45,220 --> 00:37:52,330
a Human Rights Act that put those questions proportionality within the judicial domain that has pulled judges into policy?

321
00:37:52,330 --> 00:37:59,410
Or do you think, as some judgements about Obata comments in some judgements have suggested,

322
00:37:59,410 --> 00:38:07,120
that actually there isn't so very much difference between a context related rationality review and a proportionality review,

323
00:38:07,120 --> 00:38:12,700
disrespectful of, as you say, that the greater institutional competence sometimes of the executive?

324
00:38:12,700 --> 00:38:19,900
I suppose because it could happen we are withdrawing from the EU, a government could repeal the Human Rights Act.

325
00:38:19,900 --> 00:38:26,920
Were that to happen, do you think judges would have much less engagement with policy issues or do you think

326
00:38:26,920 --> 00:38:31,000
they would arise to different routes because the intellectual habits that have arisen.

327
00:38:31,000 --> 00:38:39,430
Oh, well, there you are. If. The Human Rights Act were to be repealed.

328
00:38:39,430 --> 00:38:46,030
The questions that would come before the courts would inevitably be completely different and completely different.

329
00:38:46,030 --> 00:38:54,040
They were before the Human Rights Act. You will remember the days when.

330
00:38:54,040 --> 00:39:00,040
Advocates might introduce human rights arguments into their cases,

331
00:39:00,040 --> 00:39:09,160
but they were always regarded as a last resort and they very rarely did any good because the

332
00:39:09,160 --> 00:39:15,970
judges had to decide the question in accordance with the law they had in front of them.

333
00:39:15,970 --> 00:39:21,910
And there was a great tendency to reassure themselves that the law was completely compatible with the convention in any event,

334
00:39:21,910 --> 00:39:26,320
because a lot of people thought it was until Strassberg told them that it wasn't.

335
00:39:26,320 --> 00:39:32,960
Obviously, the Human Rights Act completely changed the way in which certain issues were.

336
00:39:32,960 --> 00:39:42,470
Looked at because it made it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with convention rights if that law is repealed.

337
00:39:42,470 --> 00:39:45,440
Well, then that completely changes the nature of the debate.

338
00:39:45,440 --> 00:39:55,430
But if the real question in reality is if the Human Rights Act were repealed, what, if anything, would they put in its place?

339
00:39:55,430 --> 00:40:00,320
And how would that differ from the Human Rights Act? That's the more interesting question.

340
00:40:00,320 --> 00:40:08,190
Of course, we don't know because it's not happened yet. They've been talking about it for a long time, but it hasn't yet happened.

341
00:40:08,190 --> 00:40:16,230
So I'm talking about the perception, at least in some quarters, that judges are activist or engaged in more engaged.

342
00:40:16,230 --> 00:40:22,500
They should be in policy questions. And I think that you didn't think judges were any more activist than they'd ever been.

343
00:40:22,500 --> 00:40:26,900
And I quote Stephen Sedley, again, a judge's judge is not activist asleep.

344
00:40:26,900 --> 00:40:32,360
So that's worse. But if you're there is that criticism.

345
00:40:32,360 --> 00:40:37,880
There was the famous enemies of the people headline and similar ones in other newspapers.

346
00:40:37,880 --> 00:40:40,550
Lots of people get unfairly criticised in the media.

347
00:40:40,550 --> 00:40:46,960
Do you think it matters if you get those criticisms of judges or do you think just can you see it off?

348
00:40:46,960 --> 00:40:51,920
I don't think it's necessary for the judges to see it off. Well, yes.

349
00:40:51,920 --> 00:41:05,710
Now, the judges have to be true to their judicial oaths and carry on regardless of it's it's very important for them to continue to do their job,

350
00:41:05,710 --> 00:41:10,300
whatever the media throw at them.

351
00:41:10,300 --> 00:41:22,520
And I think to their credit, that they do. That's not the same as being insensitive to sensible criticism, of course, reasoned criticism.

352
00:41:22,520 --> 00:41:30,940
That's a very different thing. One must always try and seek to improve of one's performance.

353
00:41:30,940 --> 00:41:40,000
But one of the big worries that there was in some very responsible quarters.

354
00:41:40,000 --> 00:41:56,250
When the Supreme Court was being set up. Was that the role of the Lord Chancellor as a very senior legal figure?

355
00:41:56,250 --> 00:42:07,610
And a senior member of cabinet. Was to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in cabinet.

356
00:42:07,610 --> 00:42:11,660
Yeah, and I know that Lord Michaelia Cash, Ben,

357
00:42:11,660 --> 00:42:23,000
was very aware of the importance of that role and worried that it would be jeopardised

358
00:42:23,000 --> 00:42:30,780
if the Lord Chancellor were no longer a senior and highly respected legal figure.

359
00:42:30,780 --> 00:42:38,070
And that is why, of course, the Constitutional Reform Act places specific statutory duties on the Lord Chancellor and secretary of

360
00:42:38,070 --> 00:42:46,830
state justice to defend the judiciary and what the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.

361
00:42:46,830 --> 00:42:56,790
And the regrettable thing about the enemies of the people incident was that the Lord Chancellor the day did not instantly fulfil that task.

362
00:42:56,790 --> 00:43:05,300
And it wouldn't have been difficult. It would not have been difficult. It's a it's a relatively easy script.

363
00:43:05,300 --> 00:43:11,120
I mean, she she said at the end, I suppose, in her own defence, well, this is a freedom of speech issue.

364
00:43:11,120 --> 00:43:17,930
What would you have said if you had been her? Oh, I think it's quite easy.

365
00:43:17,930 --> 00:43:23,660
I would have said we have a free press in this country.

366
00:43:23,660 --> 00:43:30,830
You are free to write and print what you like within the limits of the law.

367
00:43:30,830 --> 00:43:36,360
And you have not transgressed against the law. But it is my job.

368
00:43:36,360 --> 00:43:49,190
As the member of the government who's sworn to uphold the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, to tell you that you are wrong.

369
00:43:49,190 --> 00:43:51,980
These judges are not enemies of the people.

370
00:43:51,980 --> 00:44:03,440
These judges were doing their job, deciding a case in accordance with the law and in accordance with that judicial oaths.

371
00:44:03,440 --> 00:44:08,590
But if they've got it wrong, the Supreme Court will put them right.

372
00:44:08,590 --> 00:44:19,520
Really easy. Not difficult at all. And if that culture has been lost in and I'm not sure if it has been lost,

373
00:44:19,520 --> 00:44:30,950
because I think that episode actually has led in on subsequent occasions, broadcasters,

374
00:44:30,950 --> 00:44:34,040
including that particular law, chancellor,

375
00:44:34,040 --> 00:44:43,590
to be much more supportive of the judiciary when they have reached conclusions, which not all the newspapers.

376
00:44:43,590 --> 00:44:48,650
Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Um.

377
00:44:48,650 --> 00:45:01,330
Yes, I was going to ask because I think you said serving judges, we may not be their role to defend themselves if if there are unfair attacks on them.

378
00:45:01,330 --> 00:45:06,310
Do you think it's the role of retired judges, the judicial press office?

379
00:45:06,310 --> 00:45:14,410
I mean, do you think this there's a general role for people who are interested in the rule of law to make that point?

380
00:45:14,410 --> 00:45:24,130
Well, I think that people other than judges and by that I mean not only members of the legal profession,

381
00:45:24,130 --> 00:45:29,320
but I do think the leaders of the legal profession have an extremely important role in this.

382
00:45:29,320 --> 00:45:36,370
And generally they are very good at doing that. But the risk is that they will be seen as self-serving.

383
00:45:36,370 --> 00:45:41,680
And so it's important for other people who understand that the importance of the

384
00:45:41,680 --> 00:45:47,170
rule of law and the independence of the judiciary to stand up for the judiciary,

385
00:45:47,170 --> 00:45:56,920
it's difficult for the judges to do it. Yeah, you can't I don't think you can respectably go along and say,

386
00:45:56,920 --> 00:46:04,330
this is what I decided and I give them my judgement and I'm going to expand upon that to convince you that I was right.

387
00:46:04,330 --> 00:46:05,920
I don't think people should do that.

388
00:46:05,920 --> 00:46:15,070
The judgement is the judgement and you shouldn't really try and expand upon it, nor should a press office do anything other than correct errors.

389
00:46:15,070 --> 00:46:27,480
Yeah, and clarify. But one of the things that I think has been very beneficial is the greater accessibility of Supreme Court judgements.

390
00:46:27,480 --> 00:46:38,700
Because and hearings, people could watch the hearing in the enemies of the people case and they could see that

391
00:46:38,700 --> 00:46:44,340
we were not discussing whether or not the result of the referendum should be respected,

392
00:46:44,340 --> 00:46:49,390
whether or not we should leave the European Union. That was not what the debate was about at all.

393
00:46:49,390 --> 00:46:51,120
As you very well know.

394
00:46:51,120 --> 00:47:05,310
So people could see that and a wide audience that was able to realise that there was a serious constitutional mistake that was being debated.

395
00:47:05,310 --> 00:47:14,520
And that was true in the second one as well. So I think that was good and also the way in which we do our judgements with a simple two page summary.

396
00:47:14,520 --> 00:47:19,800
Yes, I was going to say, I mean, that is a that is, I think, a useful judicial role.

397
00:47:19,800 --> 00:47:22,590
And in fact, I did do an event with Lord Thomas,

398
00:47:22,590 --> 00:47:28,500
who was one of the enemies of the people in a discussion of the book of that title by Joshua Rasenberg.

399
00:47:28,500 --> 00:47:32,700
And Joshua puts a question mark on the end, which The Daily Mail didn't.

400
00:47:32,700 --> 00:47:37,920
But he said in retrospect, if they had put out a clearer press release about what they were and were not doing,

401
00:47:37,920 --> 00:47:46,800
and I suppose some of the things that were in the Supreme Court's judgement about what the judgement was not about, it might have helped, but.

402
00:47:46,800 --> 00:47:50,820
Well, it might. But they do not at all.

403
00:47:50,820 --> 00:47:59,790
It might not. Yes. I just have one other sort of institutional question, because attacks on the judges are not a uniquely British phenomenon.

404
00:47:59,790 --> 00:48:07,480
In fact, that quite a worrying and global phenomenon. I'm thinking of Poland and Hungary and various other places.

405
00:48:07,480 --> 00:48:14,220
Do you think there is ever a role for judges in one country to defend judges in another as judges,

406
00:48:14,220 --> 00:48:29,340
or do you think that's just inappropriate or political? Well, I believe that there are various networks of judges, different sorts,

407
00:48:29,340 --> 00:48:42,030
who do seek to put out statements in defence of the independence of the judiciary or the rule of law or whatever in appropriate cases.

408
00:48:42,030 --> 00:48:47,850
So it is a difficult judgement because it's not necessarily going to do any good.

409
00:48:47,850 --> 00:48:51,300
So sometimes it can do some harm.

410
00:48:51,300 --> 00:49:00,600
But to show solidarity with judicial colleagues under threat, under unjustified threat is something that I think associations can do.

411
00:49:00,600 --> 00:49:05,820
It's better if the association does it or the network that if an individual does it.

412
00:49:05,820 --> 00:49:13,110
Yeah, I've got quite a lot of questions. And if people do put questions into the Q&A function, I will try and filter them.

413
00:49:13,110 --> 00:49:23,370
I may not get to them or given that there are large, very large numbers here, but I will try to at least summarise the scope of all of them.

414
00:49:23,370 --> 00:49:28,710
There's one here which is quite important in terms of what we were discussing about the voices of people in courts.

415
00:49:28,710 --> 00:49:37,970
Hayday Nelson asking about legal aid having been withdrawn for so many very vulnerable members of society and in such sectors and asking why,

416
00:49:37,970 --> 00:49:43,740
I would ask, do you think that matters? Or judges can fill the gap when Haley asks, what do you think could be done to solve it?

417
00:49:43,740 --> 00:50:00,580
Or do you think it will be changed in the future? Oh, obviously, that is a serious gap because the withdrawal of all kinds of.

418
00:50:00,580 --> 00:50:04,070
Public funding for all kinds of legal services.

419
00:50:04,070 --> 00:50:19,190
In certain subject areas clearly creates huge problems, not only in court and in fact, not so much in court as early on in the case.

420
00:50:19,190 --> 00:50:32,450
If somebody is having trouble paying their rent or paying their council tax or is in difficulty agreeing arrangements for their children,

421
00:50:32,450 --> 00:50:37,340
what they need is some legal help at an early stage in the problem.

422
00:50:37,340 --> 00:50:48,500
And often a lawyer or somebody who's with legal training can solve the problem without

423
00:50:48,500 --> 00:50:56,520
ever having to get as far as eviction or a battle about children in court or whatever.

424
00:50:56,520 --> 00:51:01,750
And so that seems to me to be the worst thing about it. And if.

425
00:51:01,750 --> 00:51:09,130
Ways can be found of restoring the early help and advice that people need that would reduce

426
00:51:09,130 --> 00:51:14,350
the problem of representation in court because fewer cases would have to come to court,

427
00:51:14,350 --> 00:51:21,220
that would still be a problem of representation in court, but it wouldn't be as acute as it currently is.

428
00:51:21,220 --> 00:51:30,970
My feeling from the review that the Ministry of Justice published last year, early last year,

429
00:51:30,970 --> 00:51:39,880
was that they had got that message, but unfortunately, once public funding has been relinquished.

430
00:51:39,880 --> 00:51:44,720
For a particular area of activity, it's extremely difficult to get it back.

431
00:51:44,720 --> 00:51:58,850
But I think subsequent secretaries of state for justice have realised that a variety of the cuts in the justice sector were not a

432
00:51:58,850 --> 00:52:08,600
good thing and in fact have caused more problems than they have solved and have been struggling to get things back ever since.

433
00:52:08,600 --> 00:52:10,760
And it's really, really difficult.

434
00:52:10,760 --> 00:52:21,920
And in fact, my sympathies not entirely with with them in their efforts to try and retrieve something from what happened,

435
00:52:21,920 --> 00:52:27,800
particularly in the and the last bit in 2012 and.

436
00:52:27,800 --> 00:52:37,430
Now, I'm going to just end as we are an educational institution with a couple of questions about educational things.

437
00:52:37,430 --> 00:52:40,970
So one was asking if you could elaborate a bit more about the link you mentioned

438
00:52:40,970 --> 00:52:45,830
between educational access and enhancing diverse perspectives in the judiciary.

439
00:52:45,830 --> 00:52:54,290
And what do you think we as a university should be doing to try to send people out in a way that does enable them to have the I suppose,

440
00:52:54,290 --> 00:52:59,080
the empathy and the imagination that we were talking about that perhaps the best judiciary creates?

441
00:52:59,080 --> 00:53:12,290
Well, yes, I feel sure that part of the wonderful thing about being in a university, at least in normal times,

442
00:53:12,290 --> 00:53:21,320
is the exposure it gives you to a wide variety of people who are not exactly like oneself.

443
00:53:21,320 --> 00:53:29,570
Despite what I said about being irritated by the the young gentleman with the innate sense of entitlement in Cambridge.

444
00:53:29,570 --> 00:53:34,400
There were plenty of other young gentleman who did not have that sense of entitlement and in fact,

445
00:53:34,400 --> 00:53:39,560
who deeply resented the sense of entitlement that some of the others at.

446
00:53:39,560 --> 00:53:49,730
And one that the great thing about university is the opportunity it gives you to meet a wide variety of people and to,

447
00:53:49,730 --> 00:53:55,910
one hopes, debate with them all sorts of issues of earning interest.

448
00:53:55,910 --> 00:54:03,320
I think that's how you get it. Out of the more diverse your fellow students are, the more you're going to get from that,

449
00:54:03,320 --> 00:54:07,370
as long as you do all have the opportunity of getting together.

450
00:54:07,370 --> 00:54:12,350
And I hope that's still going to be possible in these difficult times.

451
00:54:12,350 --> 00:54:18,590
I fear that this may be one of the casualties of current lockdown situations,

452
00:54:18,590 --> 00:54:26,820
that it's harder to meet a wide variety of your fellow students and get out and about and learn from them.

453
00:54:26,820 --> 00:54:36,890
Yes, well, it is unfortunate. I'm cheering on our colleagues in the vaccine research department across the road, but at least we do have Zoome.

454
00:54:36,890 --> 00:54:40,580
And it has been absolutely wonderful. And Brenda, to hear those perspectives.

455
00:54:40,580 --> 00:54:47,390
There are a lot of questions, some of which I think you would say possibly going to answer in a public forum because they're much too political.

456
00:54:47,390 --> 00:54:54,890
Others, I would have liked to have asked you, but I do think we ought to stick to assume our but I do hope that we will be able

457
00:54:54,890 --> 00:54:59,660
to invite you back as part of our community in real life and before too long.

458
00:54:59,660 --> 00:55:09,530
And here's some more of your perspectives. I'd just like to remind people that next Friday, because we have one of these talks every Friday,

459
00:55:09,530 --> 00:55:17,840
next Friday, we have actually a Mansfield alum, Rashid Dastagir, who is a brand consultant, but also a poet.

460
00:55:17,840 --> 00:55:22,830
And he's going to be writing talking about his book about creativity in the 21st century.

461
00:55:22,830 --> 00:55:31,820
But before that, on Tuesday, if you get in quickly, you may be able to get in to hear another Yorkshiremen or Yorkshiremen.

462
00:55:31,820 --> 00:55:39,740
Lord Nortec is going to be talking about the next 20 years for Western democracy on Tuesday in the Hands lecture.

463
00:55:39,740 --> 00:55:46,040
I've also been asked by the university itself to say that if you enjoyed this Baroness Hale talk,

464
00:55:46,040 --> 00:55:52,040
why not tune in next week on Wednesday at one o'clock for the Romanis lecture, which she is also giving.

465
00:55:52,040 --> 00:55:56,210
So please go and have a look at that. But we do.

466
00:55:56,210 --> 00:56:02,030
I can see we've got a lot of people on this call and our Mansfield Friday talks are a very important way

467
00:56:02,030 --> 00:56:09,590
for us to reach outside the university community to encourage everybody to meet and come in and to think.

468
00:56:09,590 --> 00:56:13,250
And in normal times, we literally invite people in to college.

469
00:56:13,250 --> 00:56:17,180
But at the moment, we invite you to Zoom and our YouTube channel.

470
00:56:17,180 --> 00:56:26,840
But they are free and they are open to the public and they are emblematic to us of how we want to open up sharing issues and debate about the world.

471
00:56:26,840 --> 00:56:31,610
And we are particularly interested at Mansfield in widening access to higher education.

472
00:56:31,610 --> 00:56:37,910
It is in our DNA. So if you want to hear about these talks as they happen every term,

473
00:56:37,910 --> 00:56:42,860
please go to our website and sign up and please encourage your family and friends to as well,

474
00:56:42,860 --> 00:56:47,390
because it's one of the advantages of this silver linings of the Zoome thing.

475
00:56:47,390 --> 00:56:51,170
And if you're interested in attending in future,

476
00:56:51,170 --> 00:56:56,300
the links I think are going up in the chat box now so that you can find the link to our Web page showing how

477
00:56:56,300 --> 00:57:04,520
you can join in or even contribute to us if you are an outsider and feel like it is absolutely not compulsory.

478
00:57:04,520 --> 00:57:12,110
But thank you all very much for coming in and joining and being part of our community and making us who we are today.

479
00:57:12,110 --> 00:57:16,040
And Brenda, thank you very much for that talk and also for being part of our community.

480
00:57:16,040 --> 00:57:19,280
We really value having you as one of us. Well, thank you.

481
00:57:19,280 --> 00:57:25,073
I very much enjoyed it. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.