144 / 294
Aireacht and a number of executive agencies. I hope
to deal with this subject in greater detail when introduc-
ing the legislation to establish the new Department.
The efforts to achieve greater efficiency and to re-
duce costs in all branches and at all levels of the public
sector are being intensified. Plans are well advanced
for the introduction of more computers. Operations
research is being developed and strengthened. A special
unit in my Department has been set up to promote the
application of management by objectives in civil service
The
Judiciary
—A Report of a Sub-Committee of
"Justice"; London, Stevens, 1972; 8vo; vii plus 82 pp.;
£0.90.
It will be recalled that in the November 1971
Gazette
at page 162 an article was extracted from the
Sunday
Times
entitled "Let Judges be Judged". It was already
then stated that the proposed report on the Judiciary
would be likely to produce controversy; this has been
solved by Justice merely publishing the report of its
sub-committee on the subject, and not claiming respon-
sibility for the contents. Insofar as the views of the sub-
committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Web-
ster, Q.C., have already been stated in the previous
article, it is not proposed to repeat them.
The following additional conclusions were reached :
(1) The Judge administers the law and is in general
held in high esteem by the public and the lawyers.
(2) It seems that normally in England there are not
more than 25 Chancery and 145 Common Law Queen's
Counsel from whom to choose High Judges. The sub-
committee accepts that solicitors should be appointed
Judges. The arguments in favour are (a) that the Bar
is numerically inadequate, (b) that, in England out of
24,000 solicitors, 15,000 would have more than ten years
experience, and thus the choice would be wide; and (c)
(hat eligibility would enhance the dignity of the profes-
sion. The arguments against are (a) that solicitors have
no experience in advocacy (which is doubted); (b) that
appointment of solicitors would tend towards fusion
(which is rejected), and (c) that the Bar would be less
attractive (which is rejected for lawyers of independent
means).
(3) The sub-committee recommends that academic
lawyers should be eligible for appointment to the Court
°f Appeal (Supreme Court).
(4) It is recommended that the Lord Chancellor him-
self should retain control of judicial appointments, but
(hat he should be assisted by an advisory Appointments
Committee representing the Law Society, the Bar, the
Judiciary, academic lawyers and trained lay members.
administration. Useful results continue to be achieved
in other fields, for example, those of work survey and
organisation and methods. The growth in recent years
in training to promote efficiency will be accelerated.
As I informed Deputies last year, programme budget-
ing is being introduced on a phased basis in Govern-
ment Departments. There are now eight Departments
engaged actively in developing the system and it is the
intention that it will be operational in all Departments
by 1976.
(5) Judging is undoubtedly an exacting task, requiring
intelligence, detachment and freedom from unnecessary
pressures. It would therefore be wise to reduce robes
and ritual to a minimum. To counteract the remoteness
and isolation of the Judge in his lodgings, it is suggested
that time spent away from home should be substan-
tially reduced. Furthermore different types of varied
work should be allotted to Judges from time to time.
(6) It is recommended that, after appointment, a
Judge should receive training for a minimum period of
three months, during which he could visit any Courts
or penal institutions and consult any experts he wished.
Furthermore a Judicial Staff College on the lines of the
New York University Institute of Judicial Adminis-
tration should be established. It is also said that a com-
plaints machinery would be useful inasmuch as it might
lead to improvements in standards of judicial beha-
viour, and might provide a remedy in specific cases of
injustice; this should consist of a representative tribunal
presided over by a Judge.
(7) It is proposed that a Judge of the Superior Courts
may be removed from office only for physical or mental
incapacity to perform the functions of his office or for
misconduct. If necessary the Lord Chancellor will
appoint a Judicial Commission of not less than three
Judges to investigate the matter. The Judicial Com-
mission, having considered the matter, may refer it to
the Privy Council, who shall advise whether a Judge
should be removed. A Judge may be suspended from his
functions while the case is being considered by the
Privy Council. A Judge of any other Court who is
removed by the Lord Chancellor should be entitled to
appeal to the Privy Council.
(8) It is recommended that the retiring age for trial
Judges in all Courts should be 70 years, while that for
the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords should be
75 years.
It will be seen that the report of the sub-committee
contains somewhat controversial matter, but gbod reas-
ons are given for the conclusions reached. Altogether a
most interesting and readable document.
C.G.D.
BOOK REVIEW
143