The Politics of Judicial Independence in Britain's Changing Constitution

前言法院的权力比过去大得多，这加剧了政客和法官之间的紧张关系。这反过来又引发了关于司法独立和司法问责的越来越多的辩论。法官在制度上更加独立，有一个独立的最高法院，首席大法官取代大法官成为司法机构的负责人。但他们仍然感到不安。在他们的坚持下，2005年《宪法改革法》赋予部长们维护司法独立的法定义务。该法案没有对司法独立下定义。如果要维护它，所有需要保护它的行为者都必须清楚地理解它。因此，这个项目解决了两个问题：-司法独立的含义是什么，它的适当限制是什么？-如何最好地保护它，由谁来保护？新的安排也提出了关于问责的问题。大法官对整个司法系统负有政治责任。现在谁对谁负责？研究问题--不同的政治和法律行为者如何理解司法独立和司法问责？-司法独立和问责作为问题出现的日常背景是什么？-谁是司法独立和问责的捍卫者？他们之间的协调程度如何？-关于法官、政府和议会之间不断变化的关系，新的安排告诉了我们什么？学术重要性在英国几乎没有关于司法独立的文章，也没有被接受的理论机构。我们打算开发一套理论来解释英国司法独立和问责的理论基础、它们的适当限制和实践要求。大多数关于司法独立的书籍都是经过编辑的比较集。我们将深入研究司法独立和问责如何在特定制度内运作。它不仅将审查备受瞩目的冲突，而且还将审查关于法院服务的预算和管理、司法人员薪酬和养恤金、投诉和纪律、评估和培训的日常决定。在这一过程中，它将确定行政、议会和司法机构中的所有“隐藏监护人”，他们的日常决定决定了司法独立和问责在英国是如何解释的。政治重要性该项目非常及时。十年的宪法改革改变了宪法格局，三权分立程度大大提高。终审法院首席法官有80名工作人员为他的新角色提供支持。议会已邀请法官解释新系统是如何运作的。所有参与者--政客、法官、议员和官员--都在质疑新制度的不同方面，并制定一套新的规则。现在正是抓住正在制定的正式和非正式公约的最佳时机；探讨新出现的意见分歧及其背后的原因；并就如何解决其中一些分歧提出建议。主要产出将是：一本书--供政策制定者使用的中期和最后报告--三篇学术文章--从业人员期刊上的文章。影响--将在整个项目中举办一系列高级从业人员研讨会；公开讲座；一个网站和博客；电台和电视的采访；报刊以及法律和政治杂志的文章。项目团队和时间表研究团队拥有与政府、议会和司法机构合作的长期经验。罗伯特·哈泽尔教授(伦敦大学学院宪法组)将领导这一项目，与凯特·马尔森教授(玛丽女王)和格雷厄姆·吉博士(伯明翰)合作。这将是一个为期三年的项目，从2010年9月持续到2013年8月。

IntroductionThe courts have a lot more power than they used to, which has heightened tension between politicians and the judges. That in turn has triggered a growing debate about judicial independence, and judicial accountability.The judges are institutionally more independent, with a separate Supreme Court, and the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary in place of the Lord Chancellor. But they still feel uneasy. At their insistence, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 places a statutory duty on Ministers to uphold judicial independence. The Act does not define judicial independence. If it is to be upheld, it must be clearly understood by all the actors who are required to protect it. So two questions addressed by this project are:- What is the meaning of judicial independence, and its proper limits?- How is it best protected, and by whom?The new arrangements also raise questions about accountability. The Lord Chancellor was politically accountable for the whole judicial system. Who is now accountable, and to whom?Research questions- How do different political and legal actors understand judicial independence and judicial accountability?- What are the day to day contexts in which judicial independence and accountability arise as issues?- Who are the guardians of judicial independence, and accountability? How much coordination is there between them?- What do the new arrangements tell us about the changing relationship between the judges, government and Parliament?Academic importanceThere is little writing about judicial independence in the UK, and no accepted body of theory. We intend to develop a body of theory which explains the rationale for judicial independence and accountability in the UK, their proper limits, and practical requirements.Most books on judicial independence are comparative, edited collections. Ours will be an in depth study of how judicial independence and accountability operate within a specific system. It will examine not just high profile clashes, but the day to day decisions on the budget and management of the court service, judicial pay and pensions, complaints and discipline, appraisal and training. In the process it will identify all the 'hidden guardians' within the executive, parliament and the judiciary whose everyday decisions define how judicial independence and acccountability are interpreted in the UK.Political importanceThe project is very timely. A decade of constitutional reform has transformed the constitutional landscape, with much greater separation of powers. The Lord Chief Justice has 80 staff to support him in his new role. Parliament has invited the judges to explain how the new system works. All the actors - politicians, judges, parliamentarians and officials - are questioning different aspects of the new system, and developing a new set of rules. It is the perfect moment to capture the formal and informal conventions which are being developed; to explore emerging differences of view and the reasons behind them; and to suggest how some of those differences might be resolved. OutputsThe main outputs will be - a book- an interim and final report for policy makers- three academic articles- articles in practitioner journals.ImpactThere will be a series of high level practitioner seminars running throughout the project; public lectures; a website and blog; interviews for radio and TV; articles for the press, and for legal and political magazines. Project team and timetableThe research team have long experience of working with government, Parliament and the judiciary. Prof Robert Hazell (Constitution Unit, UCL) will lead the project, working with Prof Kate Malleson (Queen Mary) and Dr Graham Gee (Birmingham). It will be a three year project, running from Sept 2010 to August 2013.