As if it was not enough for the Home Secretary openly to criticise a judge for passing what he thought was a lenient sentence in the Sweeney case - something the Attorney-General, by all accounts, found distasteful and embarrassing - this weekend it was Vera Baird QC, a junior minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, who hammered in the government's obvious disapproval of the judge's decision forcibly over the radio in 'Any Questions' [remarks she has subsequently retracted]. This notwithstanding that, only a day before, her boss, Lord Falconer, had sought to backtrack on the Home Secretary's outburst by warning about the need not to attack judges for, in effect, doing their job within established parameters.

Where does this leave the hallowed principle of 'the continued independence of the judiciary', enshrined in section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005?


Gone is the standard response that we used to get from ministers - that they do not comment on individual cases, particularly if anything they might say could prejudice the outcome of any possible appeal.


The judges are thus being put in an invidious position by a climate of hostility, nurtured by populist politicians unable to defend their own corner against an aggressive media. The judges cannot enter into the public arena to explain their decisions, and yet their integrity is constantly being undermined by irresponsible ministerial utterances. Are we witnessing early signs of a clash between the executive and the judiciary? If so, that does not bode well for the nation.


RKD Shah, Epsom