Conclusions
It has been argued that the orthodox approach to parliamentary accountability practices in relation to the judicial system—a prohibited zone plus ministerial responsibility—is no longer viable given the dramatic changes that have taken place in the judicial power of the state, the governance of the judiciary, and rising expectations about the degrees to which all public bodies are held to account.
Additional tools of accountability are needed. This study has sought to examine the ways in which MPs and peers have and use opportunities to exercise an accountability role: all the accountability procedures at their disposal are used to some extent. Select committees appear to be regarded as especially important, both for parliamentarians and the judiciary.Although constitutional principle and standing orders discourage parliamentary scrutiny of the core activities of the judicial system (deciding individual cases and setting precedents), parliamentarians can and do inquire into case law and approaches to statutory interpretation, though there are unresolved questions about the constitutional propriety of doing so, for example in carrying out post-legislative scrutiny. Parliament’s record in examining legislative change is mixed: the CRA 2005 shows Parliament responding in a thorough if rather partisan way to poorly prepared government policy; the failure of any Select Committee to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill demonstrates the difficulties parliamentarians have in finding time and enthusiasm for effective legislative scrutiny. Tiere seems no appetite among MPs or peers for involvement in individual judicial appointments. From time to time, MPs seek to criticize individual judges for their conduct but there has been little or no interest in scrutinizing the work of the complaints system that now exists. In relation to judicial leadership and governance, there is a lack of clarity about when and why statutory duties to make annual reports should exist and variations in practice in making and scrutinizing reports.
Effective parliamentary accountability mechanisms, respecting the independence of the judiciary, are important for the legitimacy of the judicial system. Tiey may also help to dissuade ministers and their speechwriters from taking cheap shots at judges and judgments.[742]