header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 September 2017 / Khawar Qureshi KC
Issue: 7760 / Categories: Features , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Protecting the judiciary

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7760_qureshi

If we value the rule of law, we must not take our judges for granted, says Khawar Qureshi QC

  • The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 removed the Lord Chancellor from the centuries-old role of head of the judiciary.
  • The judiciary has since been subjected to increased attacks from politicians and the media, yet are prevented from answering back.

One of the most radical and unexpected changes to the position of the judiciary took place on 12 June 2003, when the Labour Government abruptly announced the abolition of the centuries old role of the Lord Chancellor who had hitherto been described as ‘the lightning rod between the executive and the judiciary’. Lord Irvine was removed from the post of Lord Chancellor, and replaced by Lord Falconer who immediately encountered heavy criticism and resistance for the lack of consultation with the judiciary, and the somewhat hasty approach that was being adopted.

The late Lord Bingham, in his article in the Law Quarterly Review [2006] 211 at p 220, observed that: ‘Whether as widely believed,
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll