The Gazette 1967/71

Upon to do so. This is not something which a registrar, who is necessarily an expert in county court work, could reasonably be asked to do. Complaints and disciplinary bodies Editor: 5 Would you favour the participation of laymen in (a) determining complaints from the public about lawyers; (b) the proceedings of law yers' own disciplinary bodies? Lord Chancellor: This seems to me to be a question for the public relations of the professions on which, as Lord Chancellor, I ought not to express a view. My experience of the legal professions is that their handling of complaints against their mem bers is both meticulous and fair. However, I recognise — and I think the professions recognise — that some dissatisfied clients are apt to ignore or underrate the professions' genuine interest in maintaining public confidence by promoting and enforcing high standards. The handling of com plaints should not only be, but be seen to be, efficient and fair, and the professions should be expected, and will no doubt desire, to satisfy the public that these conditions are fulfilled. Supreme Court Editor: 6 («) Have you any comment to make on Lord Goodman's utterance at last month's Law Society's Conference at Bristol to the effect that it did not help the administration of justice to have judges sitting in an elevated position dressed in Jacobean robes? Lord Chancellor: The particular formalities and robes which judges observe and wear vary from country to country in accordance with nati onal tradition. There is virtually no country in which there is no formality and few in which there are no robes. Whether it helps to have the judges sitting on a rostrum and wearing robes depends, I think, on the nature of the court in which they are adjudicating. For the legal argument which is the concern of the House of Lords (where apart from the Lord Chancellor the Law Lords do not in fact wear robes), no change in the present arrangements would be either necessary or helpful. I dare say that it would be useful to consider this

question in relation to certain tribunals, but I personally think -that it is important to keep a degree of formality, especially in the criminal courts, and to make people realise that the judge has full control over the proceedings and is a person to be respected. It is easy enough to ridicule the fact that most judges and, indeed, counsel wear wigs and gowns and that solicitors when appearing in county courts as advocates wear gowns. But ours is by no means the only country in which it is customary for them to do the like and I think that we should consider the matter very carefully before throwing aside something which is not simply of superficial significance. Editor: (b) Would you like to see frequent use of the new power, given by pt II of the Adminis tration of Justice Act 1969, enabling an appellant to leapfrog the Court of Appeal and go directly to the House of Lords on appeal from the High Court? Lord Chancellor: This is a question for the parties themselves if the statutory conditions are satisfied. If they are, there is a saving of time and money to be effected. I would, however, be sur prised if frequent use could be made of the power, as I do not suppose that there would be many cases which would satisfy the conditions, which were only designed for exceptional cases. Editor: (c) Should there be state-supported legal actions to clarify the law whereby the higher courts would be asked to give rulings wider than an appellant's own particular circumstances? Lord Chancellor: No, not in the terms stated. As was pointed out by the United States Supreme Court to President George Washington in the very early days of its history, the law develops more flexibly by the consideration of actual cases than by an attempt to legislate for new ones which is the function of Parliament. To ask appellate courts to go wider than the case before them would be a fundamental and undesirable departure from the doctrine of precedent and, indeed, inconsistent with the judicial function as hitherto understood in this country. There are, of course, a number of schemes which have been put forward over the years for subsidising appeals in various ways and for various purposes, includ ing the clarification of the law. The latest, and perhaps most far-reaching, scheme was advanced 193