Nick Cartwright's Blog

As an undergraduate law student I read very little actual case law, I focused instead on textbooks and a few journal articles.  With the exception of a handful of infamous judicial figures such as Lords Diplock and Devlin my knowledge of the judiciary was, when I graduated, dismal.  It seems odd then that I chose to do an analysis of how nine judges had dealt with ethical concepts for my Masters’ thesis.  I did though and spent nearly a decade pulling apart the judgment in Bland, the case of a teenager who suffered irrevocable brain damage in the Hilsborough disaster – the courts ruled that it was lawful to withdraw the treatment keeping him alive.  Having a favourite part of a judgment is undeniably geeky but I was immediately engaged by how the Court of Appeal dealt with the issues the case raised.  Lord Justice Hoffman’s judgment enraged me, the way he dealt with dignity seemed so fundamentally out of line with the philosophy I’d read, but Sir Thomas Bingham and Lord Justice Butler Sloss’ judgments thrilled me.  Sir Thomas Bingham went on to become Lord Bingham, Lord Chief Justice whilst Elizabeth Butler-Sloss became the highest ranking female judge and is now Baroness Butler-Sloss.   Despite my scorn Lord Hoffman hasn’t done badly either, he is now Baron Hoffman.

Sadly Lord Bingham died yesterday and tributes abound, praising him for his opposition to the war in Iraq and for his defence of human rights.  My gushing doesn’t go as far as tagging him as my favourite judge, that honour (?) is reserved for Butler-Sloss, but he ranks highly in my judicial dream team.  I respect him most for his judgment in Jackson - the case were the Countryside Alliance challenged the legality of the fox hunting ban.  In their judgments the Law Lords, especially Bingham, made it clear that they viewed the role of the judiciary as a kind of watchdog of the constitution, and that they would resist any attempts by governments to erode our cherished constitutional norms such as the rule of law and basic human rights.  Criticised by many, this was the unelected judiciary giving a bloody nose to our elected representatives after all.  But if like me you doubt whether we live in a true democracy and hold certain key values to be important, regardless of the will of the majority then this is sentiment is important.  The problem is that whilst the judiciary reigning in the power of what Lord Scarman described as an elective dictatorship is great when the judiciary share your values, it is rubbish if they don’t.  I will miss Lord Bingham’s contribution to legal discourse, but I will also miss Butler-Sloss’ and even Hoffman’s, both now retired, judgments.  I hope their brilliance is replicated in the next generation of judges otherwise our politicians may act unchecked.