Irvine says gay judges need not reveal sexuality

Gay lawyers hoping to become judges should not be obliged to disclose their sexual orientation when applying to go on the bench, Lord Irvine of Lairg QC, the Shadow Lord Chancellor declared yesterday.

Lord Irvine, who is widely tipped to become Lord Chancellor under a future Labour government, told barristers at their annual conference in London: "I think it should be made plain that the mere fact of sexual orientation, or cohabitation with a partner of the same sex, need not be disclosed."

There are gays at all levels of the legal hierarchy and homosexuality has proved to be no barrier to judicial appointment under the present Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. But the application form for judicial office makes it an obligation to disclose anything in an applicant's private or professional life which might be a "source of embarrassment to the applicant or the Lord Chancellor if it were to become known" after appointment.

Some gay barristers feel compelled by this provision to mention their sexual orientation at a time when it is no longer a matter for "embarrassment" for large numbers of people and is widely regarded as not relevant to their ability to act judicially.

The comments came as Lord Irvine confirmed Labour's commitment to an advisory commission on judicial appointments, including a strong lay element, which would be preceded by a White Paper.

Lord Irvine said Labour's new procedures would give lay members of interviewing panels direct access to comments gathered about applicants during consultations. They would also apply to all levels of judicial appointment. At present appointments to the High Court bench and above are by invitation only. "I acknowledge the high quality of the High Court bench, but I do not believe that the present system of appointment guarantees that all deserving candidates will be identified and considered."

He also signalled that the high costs of Maxwell-style criminal cases would come under the scrutiny of a Labour review of legal aid spending. Fixed scales of fees for the highest-paid QCs do not apply in the heaviest criminal cases, such as complex frauds and high profile homicides.

"In these cases there are no standard fees for QCs, leaving them as the only practitioners whose fees are left to the indeterminate concept of reasonable fees for work reasonably done. This must be addressed."

Lord Irvine pointed out that in the higher courts 46 per cent of the criminal legal aid budget went on just 1 per cent of the cases. "Labour's review will address how the costs of the most expensive cases can be significantly reduced." Levels of accountants' fees in serious fraud cases would be separately scrutinised, he said.