LETTER: Legal folly of trying the judge

Professor A. Bradley
Saturday 04 November 1995 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

From Professor A. Bradley

Sir: For any politician to seek to blame the judges, directly or indirectly, for current weaknesses in Britain's social policies ("Regina versus the politicians", 2 November) is both a serious lapse in statesmanship as well as an inept failure to accept three essential features of the legal system today.

These are (1) the development of administrative law since the Sixties, which has equipped the judges with the means of reviewing the legality of innumerable acts of ministers, civil servants and local politicians; (2) the increased importance of human rights as a yardstick of governmental action, without which neighbourly relations between states, whether in Europe or the Commonwealth, are not possible; (3) the need, expressed in the Law Commissions Act of 1965, for our legal system to have a means of keeping the law up to date in areas of social life where the inspiration for reform comes neither from political manifestos nor economic interests.

If any political party does not understand the distinct contribution that each of these elements makes to the rule of law today, it will probably not see the folly of attempting to bring judges of the distinction of Sir Henry Brooke and Dame Brenda Hale into the arena of party conflict.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bradley

London, EC4

2 November

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in