Courts ‘are not consumer service providers’ says senior judge

Family Law|June 16th 2017

The courts are nota provider of consumer services” the Lord Chief Justice has insisted.

In a speech at the Palace of Westminster this week, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd stressed the importance of recognising the true status of the legal system in public life, following years of funding cuts and an erosion in the relationship between ministers and the judiciary.

Recent governments, he declared, appeared to have seen the courts as:

“…service providers akin to a utility like water supply, [and] litigants exercising their constitutional right of access to the courts to vindicate their rights, [as] consumers who, like any other consumer, must pay for the service they receive.”

This was wrong, His Lordship said. Instead he called for

“…an understanding by all that the judicial branch is just that: a branch of state, and, crucially, the branch that with parliament secures the rule of law. As such it cannot be confused with, or referred to as, a provider of consumer services.”

Such an understanding necessitated a recognition, he said, that the courts must be funded by the state.

Lord Thomas also cited the infamous ‘ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE’ headline in The Daily Mail last November, published in response to a Supreme Court ruling that the government needed a parliamentary vote to trigger Britain’s exit from the European Union.

“Such abuse is corrosive of public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law and hence the other branches of the state.”

The failure of then Lord Chancellor Liz Truss to defend the judiciary from the hysterical media response to the ruling attracted considerable criticism from the legal profession. The new Lord Chancellor, Tory MP David Lidington, will be sworn into office next week.

Lord Thomas urged him to maintain independence and be ready to resist pressure from the Prime Minister or other members of the Cabinet.

Author: Stowe Family Law

Comments(2)

  1. spinner says:

    If the courts are a branch of government and not a private consumer service provider why are lawyers not all public employees? If they were and were all paid in line with other professions such as teachers or policemen then the costs to the public, in general, would reduce very quickly and the courts would become more accessible. Lawyers cannot have it both ways.

  2. m says:

    I just learned my husband took my employee retirement and hid it from me never telling me he had it and denying we had any money or invested at all in our divorce. Now after attacks last year and my brakes going out on one occasion I started looking for what he hid and lied about. What I found shakes me to the core. I got nothing at all and it appears he not only hid it but may have given it to others in my family. Seems he may have just been one big lie and may even be s well known person on wall street. I have found so many outrageous things that I can’t understand and keep feeling over and over that it can’t be. Even in diviorcre you don’ t do the things my ex-husband did to me and to be rich possibly because of having access to dividends he took as his own ( I NEVER GOT A PENNY) is so hateful! I have strurggled and even lost a house and business when he refused to pay the judges order of our separation agreement. He was the reason my store didn’t make it and then also responsible for not working since last June….

Leave a Reply

Close

Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy