Think before you meddle, LCJ advises constitutional reformers

In a speech delicately circling the perimeter of political comment, the lady chief justice has offered lessons from history for parties proposing constitutional reform. Lady Carr's Blackstone Lecture, delivered at Pembroke College, Oxford, last week, contrasted the 'ad-hocery' of the Blair government's reforms with the deliberative approach of Victorian governments in founding the modern courts system. 

Her lecture, entitled The Constitutional Reform Act - 20 years on, did not overtly criticise the Blair reforms, which created the Supreme Court, the modern office of lord chancellor and ushered in legal professional liberalisation. The resulting settlement, she noted, 'remains intact' despite commentators' concerns that 'the true constitutional nature of the reforms was not as fully appreciated as it ought to have been'.

However as a comparison, Lady Carr looked back at the Judicature Acts 1873 to 1875, which 'swept away the myriad of historical courts', merging several into the High Court of Justice as well as creating a single Court of Appeal. The legislation followed detailed consideration by a series of Royal Commissions over more than a decade, she said. 'What is apparent from the 19th century is that its approach to the constitutional reform of the courts and judiciary was one that had a clear objective – to eliminate the cost, delay and complexity that undermined real access to justice,' she noted. 'It was anything but ad-hoc.'

The difference in the two approaches has lessons for the future, she suggested. Although the lady chief justice steered clear of current party politics, her speech follows proposals floated by Reform UK for a 'big beautiful reset bill' to wind back the Blair reforms. Lady Carr said governments should 'not shy away from making significant systemic changes where necessary' but these should follow 'considered deliberation after identification of a clear set of questions and issues for exploration'.

Noting that the Victorians 'were distinctly radical when they needed to be', she concluded: 'What this perhaps should tell us is that we should be bolder in our approach to reform. The time may have come for us to think about rationalising the governance and organisation of the judiciary, to take account of modern conditions.'