Lord Judge ‘troubled’ by court camera plan
The lord chief justice has voiced opposition to the government’s plan to allow the filming of sentencing in the Crown court.
Lord Judge said today he was ‘troubled by cameras swanning around court’.
Appearing before the House of Lords constitution committee today he revealed that broadcasts of the criminal and civil appeal court would begin in October, under the Crime and Courts Bill currently going through parliament.
But Judge, who retires from his post in September, said he was opposed to the government’s long-stated aim to allow cameras to film sentencing remarks.
‘My concerns about the sentencing process is you can have the camera fixed on the judge, but do you have it on the defendant?
‘How do you avoid what has happened in New Zealand where they fixed cameras on the judgment but people demonstrated during the remarks with cheers and booing?’
Lord Judge said he was happy for cameras to come into the appeal court, although he predicted that viewers would find proceedings ‘very dull’.
But any further intrusion, he said, should come only with the approval of the lord chief justice and not be dictated by broadcasters.
During the hour-long appearance, Lord Judge also revealed that he expects an announcement next week on the long-running issue of judicial pensions changes.
Whilst he accepted that everybody should have to feel the effect of the country’s economic situation, he said the government should not overlook specific factors relating to the judiciary.
In particular he said judges had committed themselves to this career with no prospect of returning to their work as a solicitor or barrister, whilst pension reform could also affect attempts to create greater diversity in the judiciary.
The current proposals, which include greater pension contributions and benefits based on career average rather than final salary, would ‘not be very welcome’, he added.
Comments
Ah yes, judges are different
Ah yes, judges are different to every other type of lawyer and should be shielded from the economic winds the rest of us endure!
Well, they are lawyers just like the rest of us and should just get on with it-like the rest of us! The days of deference to status are long since gone.
Does Lord Judge not think
Does Lord Judge not think that the judiciary earn enough to save toward their retirement?
Not all solicitors and barristers (or the ever overlooked legal executives, licenced conveyancers etc) have the means to fund a pension let alone save.
It urks me that those with public service/goverment pensions feel so let down by a small varation to their pension wilst demonstrating complete disrgard for the fact that their pensions are a huge asset that many other workers' do not have - and of course, they are funded by the tax payer who is already shouldering the burden of so much.
I have no doubt the judiciary deserve their pension as do teachers, police officers etc.. but shouldn't they spare a thought for those who either have no pension provision or those for whom there is no "employer" contribution to their fund. Don't they deserve the same?
The massive increase in
The massive increase in contributions and change to CPI - applied to existing staff and even existing pensioners - are simply a breach of good faith. The Treasury has spotted a soft target and (forgive the mixed metaphor) is milking it.
If a private-sector company sells 100,000 widgets at one pound each to the Ministry of Wild Geese and Mares' nests and delivers the widgets in good order and on time it expects £100,000; not £90,000 and an explanation that times are hard and that in future it will only pay 90p per widget, take it or leave it.
The supplier may well expect
The supplier may well expect the contract price from the buyer-and indeed is entitled to it.
However, if told that times are hard and he's getting £90,000 or he can sue for the £100,000-he'll take the £90,000,
Trust me, that's the way the world works-its called reality.
The massive increase in
Well said Andrew. I also agree with "truelysaddened" that the employer's contribution is paid out of taxpayers money, but so is the comparatively lower salary. The fairly substantial employee's contribution is paid by the employee out of that salary!
Those in public service take the view that pensions should be at the same level for everybody in comparative employment, but so should the salaries (including any provision for a bonus!).
Lord Judge's Pension
I feel great sympathy for Lord Judge and his diminishing pension pot, although not quite as much as for the other hard pressed public sector workers, nurses, teachers and especially the police, who have just been notified their personal pension contributions are going up to 13.5% of their salary.
The argument between the public and private sector on pensions has been somewhat hijacked of late with the Government launching a continued attack on these "Gold Plated" public sector schemes, largely as a diversionary tactic to hide their continued raids and ineptitude on re-invigorating private schemes. Let us be under no illusions pay in the public sector has long been surpressed and less attractive than in the private sector. A decent pension has been the only thing keeping many in those jobs. With that gone let's see who's left.
£19,000.00 for a newly appointed police constable. £45,000.00 for a trainee tube train driver. £65,000.00 with a £32,000.00 pay claim pending for an MP. Oh and when are they going to give up their "Gold Plated" pension scheme with a minimul personal contribution level. See the Parliamentary web site. You carry on Lord Judge. Justice for the public sector.
re Lord Judge's Pension
Well I am obviously in the wrong job, I should give up being a sole practitioner and become a trainee tube driver, I would earn more money and get a decent pension. As it is now, after cutting all expenses and overheads to the bone, I still have barely enough to cover my personal financial obligations let alone pay for a pension or save anything whatsoever. I keep at it because 1) I actually help people and that is a good feeling,and 2) more realistically, I don't know any firms these days who will hire anyone over 50 so I don't have much of a choice. Even before I was made redundant and was still employed by a midsize firm, they didn't pay any employer's contributions into my pension. I am fed up of people saying that those of us in the private sector are raking it in and can afford our own pensions.
Lord Judge's Pension cf other Public Sector Pensions
"trulysaddened", like the government, seems to lump together Lord Judge's pension and all public sector pensions, as "funded by the tax payer". Even if the judges' pension scheme is overwhelmingly "funded by the tax payer", the same cannot be said of Local Government pensions. Because of past contributions by employees and employers, most of these are capable of surviving as stand-alone schemes, paying out defined benefits, though admittedly some are in danger as a result of employer-side pension-holidays taken in the 1980s. The finances concerning public sector pensions are very complex, and any attempt to simplify them for the sake of undermining public sector workers as a whole, should be challenged.
Pensions
I agree with the various comments about taxpayer funded relatively high pensions in the public sector. Calls by the government for cuts to be made (and contributions increased) are more than valid.
Surely the best way to obtain much wider support for this approach in the present need for austerity is to lead the way by drastically reducing pension rights for MPs and those in the Civil Service
Judges pensions
""Whilst he accepted that everybody should have to feel the effect of the country’s economic situation, he said the government should not overlook specific factors relating to the judiciary.
In particular he said judges had committed themselves to this career with no prospect of returning to their work as a solicitor or barrister, whilst pension reform could also affect attempts to create greater diversity in the judiciary.""
Excuse me?
What specific factors? and you were not compelled to become a judge?
Unfortunately the UK justice system is like the bankers now a religion of money. Many of those who applied to become judges were failed barristers or solicitors anyway either with no hope of earning the judicial salary or couldn't be bothered to continue huistling for a living. Become a judge = regular wage and super pension. If they were already giving up a successful career before bcoming a judge surely a state funded pension would not be necessary?
No diiferent to many of our politiicians - not in it for public service but for what services they can get from the public.
There is no money left and a growing public sector expense is being carried by a declining private sector which can in substantial parts disappear offshore in a spiral of decline..