Jump to content

Talk:Judicial functions of the House of Lords/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I'm a bit unhappy with the section about the Pinochet case. The implication is almost that the idea of the Lords overruling themselves was an innovation, but anyone with any knowledge of that area of law would know that the Lords have for a very long time been willing to entertain what amounts to a challenge to one of their decisions.

The classic case on bias is Dimes v the Grand Junction Canal. It is a case where a Lords decision was overturned later by the Lords (again).

In fact any court of competent jurisdiction in England can alter a previous decision.

Would it be useful to make this clear?

Francis Davey 01:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed: "Another case involved the issue of a hospital's authority to separate conjoined ('siamese') twins against the wishes of the parents." - this was a Court of Appeal (Family Division) case - Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2000). -- Bbtommy


House of Lords Judicial Committee

I'm quite interested in the term "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords". The information on the House of Lords website (PDFs both long and short) doesn't use the term: the House of Lords has a judicial function, which it exercises through Appeal Committees (who review petitions for leave to appeal) and Appellate Committees (who hear the actual cases), both made up of Law Lords. Decisions are then formally approved by the Law Lords in the chamber. There's no mention of a Judicial Committee at all (and "the Judicial Committee" is used at times to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council).

Is "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords" correct terminology?

--rbrwr

Your description here matches what I have heard as well; the title of the page seems to be quite inaccurate (and downright confusing). --Tb 20:09 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I found that true too, as I Canadian in constitutional law areas I am aware of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and many important tort and contract cases come from the House of Lords, but I do not recall a Judicial Committee at the House of Lords; I remember we always got a bit confused about that as the Law Lords usually sit as Privy Counselors when hearing foreign appeals, same people different consitutional function. However it appears that at least six House of Lords QCs (Queens Counsel) and one PC (Privy Counselor) agree that there is a Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, see footnote 4 on page 3 Judicial Functions of the House of Lords by Lord Alexander of Weedon QC (Chair), Lord Archer of Sandwell QC, Lord Goodhart QC, Lord Inglewood, Professor Jeffrey Jowell QC, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and Lord Scarman OBE, PC. It appears that the Judicial Committee refers to all the Committees taken as a whole, both Appeal and Appellate, as there are two groupings of each. That is enough authority for me. — Alex756 06:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The usage of Judicial Committee is probably a misconception on part of the previous editors. There exists, technically, no "Judicial Committee." Theoretically, any member of the House may hear an appeal. In practice, however, only the Law Lords, sitting as a Committee, hear the cases. It is thus innacuracte to suggest that the "Judicial Committee" (or any other Committe, for that matter) is the English court of last resort. One must, in order to maintain accuracy, suggest that the House of Lords is the highest court, while a Committee of Law Lords is, in practice, the body that carries out the House's judicial functions. Lord Emsworth 01:08, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

It is true that the judicial functions of the House belong to the whole house and not to the comittee(s), however, a separate page for the judicial functions of the House of Lords is still necessary. On many pages the words "House of Lords" is used, but links to the Judicial Committee page. I am also sceptical about the existance of a "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords". It seems a strange agglomeration of the Appellate and Appeal committees, as it never sits, and it seems to be an informal usage, although one that is even found on the Lord Chancellor's website. In that report, the footnote which explains the title JCHL does not mention the term or explain the relationship with the other committees, merely stating that there are Appellate and Appeal committees. There is a very full House of Lords library note on the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House which examines the history of the jurisdiction and the appeal and appellate committees. Nowhere does it use the term JCHL and in fact uses the term Judicial Committee to refer to the JC of the Privy Council.
In short, we know what the Appeal and Appellate committees do, and we know that their work is not the entirety of the judicial power of the House. We do not know anything about a supposed Judicial Committee. I propose renaming the page Judicial functions of the House of Lords. Andrew Yong 08:40, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I have no problem with the terminology, it is more general and covers what is customarily given many different names. In many Wikipedia naming situations, the name that is adopted at first blush is not the best name for a particular subject. This is a good example of how the name of an article can evolve towards something more general and more precise. — Alex756 04:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

should house of lords abolished


The "House of Lords Judicial Committee" exists. Google ["Gouse of Lords Judicial Committee"

about 288 English pages for "House of Lords Judicial Committee" -wikipedia

Some examples from the first 10 pages returned by the search:

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Nobody is disputing that the term is used, the dispute is whether there is an actual committee, or just sloppy usage/a descriptive term instead of the Appeals Committe etc.
The first three links don't demonstrate that a committe of that name exists, they could easily be read as referring to the Appeals Committee, which is the one that was actually making judgements, and so therefore is what was meant - so the question is then what type of error is it? The last one, doesn't appear to have the words 'judicial committee' in it. For example, if it existed we ought to be able to find references specifically saying whether the appeals committee is a subcommittee of the Judicial Committee or not.
Indeed the the last document talks a lot about the Appellate Committee and how it is structured and its history doesn't mention the supposed 'Judicial Committee' one - a mark against, even. Morwen - Talk 12:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is "sloppy" as you put, what matters is that it is used. It is not only used by journalists but it is also used in parliamentary and academic documents. When the Home Office usese it:

House of Lords ruling
The House of Lords Judicial Committee ruled that Part 4 powers were incompatible with articles of the European Commission on Human Rights that relate to the right to liberty, and the right to freedom from discrimination.
The committee considered Part 4 powers to be discriminatory as they only applied to foreign nationals, not to British citizens, and that they were not proportionate to the threat the UK faced from terrorism.
The Home Secretary accepted the ruling that new legislative measures must apply equally to nationals as well as non-nationals. These new measures are included in the the Prevention of Terrorism Act.(my ephasis)[1]

then I do no see why you should object to it being included in a Wikipedia article. It has also been reported in Hansard that it is used in the House of Lords eg:

Lord Thomas of Gresford ... The House of Lords Judicial Committee overruled that recently, and we are now back in the position where the subjective mens rea is an essential element of those crimes ...[2]

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeahnoyeahbut. The way you've put it in makes it seems like a seperate entity from the Appeals Committee. I'm quite happy for it to be put in as an alternate name for the Appeals Commitee. Morwen - Talk 17:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a collection of sloppy and imprecise usages by people who ought to know better. The judicial power of the House of Lords is vested in the whole House, who delegates that power to ad-hoc Appellate committees and Appeal committees (which are not the same thing) which consist of Lords of Appeal selected to hear a single particular appeal or application for leave to appeal. The membership of each Appellate committee is rarely more than five, which means it excludes the majority of Law Lords. Contrast that with the Judicial Committee of the Privy council, which is a permanent committee established by Act of Parliament comprising all the members of the Privy Council qualified to hear cases. Andrew Yong 15:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You obviously don't understand that much about the British constitution then. Precedent and the way things are done around here are very important parts of the British constitution. That's how the concept of Law Lords was established in the first place. It became convention that only those members of the House of Lords who were judicially qualified would hear appeals. The fact that the term House of Lords Judicial Committee is used by important agencies as a convention means that de facto that institution exists, and if the term is used long enough de jure that institution will exist. The Supreme Court Act 2005 means that the precedent won't get a chance to become de jure rather than de facto but the possibility is still theoretically there. David Newton 13:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then, if you are such an expert on the British constitution, perhaps you care to tell me what the House of Lords Judicial Committee is, what its membership consists of. Lords of Appeal? Lords of Appeal under 75? Lords of Appeal in Ordinary? How does it relate to the Appellate and Appeal committees? Andrew Yong 13:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

On "does the House has an expressly-so-known Judicial Committee or not?". Pedantic as I am, roll on the supreme court. (Supreme Court of England and Wales? The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sitting at the Supreme Court?)

The term is used in sources like the Home Office [3] and by organisation like UNCAT [4] so it is quite legitimate to include the term in this article, and may be of help to people who have come across the expression in such places and want to know what the committee is. So I have reinserted the "House of Lords Judicial Committee" into the page and put in citations to show that both names are used. I would direct anyone who thinks that this is a "sloppy" name to read Wikipedia:Verifiability policy document "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." As the Home Office use the term it is verifiable in a reliable, published source that the term is "also" used. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Titles

In List of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, why do we have:

  • The Rt Hon. The Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, PC
  • The Rt Hon. The Lady Hale of Richmond, DBE, PC

and not "baroness Hale of Richmond" (as she is called in the House's judgments)? Apokrif 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) In which cases does one use a generic word like "Lord" or "Lady", or a specific title like Earl? Apokrif 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

probably because there are particular styles of address in court, that are not the same as those used outside. A judge might be addressed as "my Lord", even if they are not a Lord (or not, even if they are); similarly one would, if refering to Lady Hale in court, either say "Baroness Hale of Richmond" or "Lady Hale". Francis Davey 18:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "baroness" is favored for the reason given in Peerage:

"Confusion is possible here, for though the wife of an Earl and a suo jure Countess (that is, one holding the dignity in her own right) are both officially titled Countess and are known in speech as Lady, the wife of a Baron is officially titled Lady, while a woman holding that rank in her own right (usually a life peeress) is officially titled Baroness but is also commonly referred to in speech as Lady. Hence, Margaret Thatcher, a suo jure life peeress, may be correctly referred to as either "Baroness Thatcher" or "Lady Thatcher". "Baroness" is not used for female holders of Scottish lordships of Parliament; for example, Flora Fraser is known as "Lady Saltoun" as opposed to "Baroness Saltoun"." Apokrif 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Baroness Hale of Richmond" and "Lady Hale of Richmond" are both equally correct and accurate. It is usually left up to the peeress herself to decide by what name she wishes to be known. "Lady Hale" is the more English. Although Lady Hale is styled "Baroness" in the Law Reports, it may be noted that other members of the House refer to her Ladyship as "Lady Hale" (for example, Lord Hope of Craighead). It really makes no difference and certainly does not create confusion - if anything, calling her Ladyship "Baroness" creates confusion as the usual terms for peers are "Lords and Ladies". My preference is for "Lady" and, as it is very likely that I put the original list together, that is why it was "Lady". But never mind: as I know well by now, busybodies who think they know everything are wont to go around changing things on a whim without realising that there may be more than one correct answer. Incidentally, the bit about forms of address in court has no basis.13th Law Lord (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration of an earlier decision

"A recent example of the House of Lords reconsidering an earlier decision occurred in 2001, when the judgment in the case on the extradition of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was overturned on the grounds that one of the Lords on the committee, Lord Hoffman, was a member of Amnesty International, a party involved in the case. The matter was reheard by a panel of seven Lords of Appeal in Ordinary."

In these cases, who in the House has the power to decide whether a case whill be reheard? Apokrif 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990115/pino01.htm Apokrif 15:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That was an exceptional (and, to my knowledge, unique) case. The House decided that the case should be re-heard and set aside its own judgment. Lord Hoffmann is spelt with two Ns. 13th Law Lord (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peerage claims

If the members of the new Supreme Court of the UK are not peers, who will judge peerage claims? Apokrif 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Lords of appeal

"By constitutional convention only those lords who are legally qualified (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or Law Lords) hear the appeals"

But: "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are joined by a number of Lords of Appeal"

So do Lords of appeal hear appeals without being allowed by constitutional convention? Or should the sentence be rephrased? Does "Law Lords" refer to all lords who hear appelas, or only to Lords of appeal in ordinary? Apokrif 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Appeal include Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Although all Lords of Appeal can technically hear appeals, they hardly never do. Rarely, an ex-Law Lord may come back to hear one-off appeals when the other members of the court are busy (for example, when there are an unusual number of appeals before the House), or when an ex-Law Lord is particularly expert in a field of law being discussed; for an example, see Pye v. Graham [2003], where Lord Browne-Wilkinson sat again after three years of retirement. Also, the sitting Lord Chief Justice has on occasion heard these one-off appeals (although it should be noted that the two most recent Lords Chief Justice, Lord Woolf of Barnes and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, were ex-Law Lords themselves and were about to retire and about to move back up to the House of Lords respectively). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.2.130 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

  • Oppose too.

Law Lord v. Law Lords

Why does Law Lord redirect to one page and Law Lords to another? 13th Law Lord (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords/Archive_1&oldid=1142766160"