England: MPs warned against second guessing judges who chair government inquiries

Beatson LJ, who is drafting guidelines on what judges should be allowed to say on the government’s legislation and policy, said there are MPs who do not believe chairing an inquiry is a function of judges and that, as such, judges are not needed for this purpose.

Speaking at an event to mark the publication of a research project on judicial independence, he said: “The general constitutional principles about what is required to protect judicial independence mean that judges are not to be questioned about cases which they have decided or in which they have been involved, and do not comment on such cases.

“Those principles apply to a judicial chair of an inquiry and require a constitutional convention that he or she should not be questioned about the recommendations they have made.

“It is something of a paradox that although the chair has been chosen because it is considered that the particular inquiry needs a judge and a substantially judicial process, some committee members do not accept that chairing the inquiry is a judicial function.”

Beatson LJ warned that if select committees did not respect the consequences of having judges chair inquiries, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas “may be more reluctant to agree that a member of the judiciary of England and Wales should do so”.

He cited as an example a report by the House of Commons’ Northern Ireland Affairs Commitee which stated it did not consider the chair of the “On the Run” inquiry, Lady Justice Hallett, to have acted in a judicial capacity.

The judge concluded: “As the number of invitations increase, so does the need for clarity in the boundary of what is permissible and what is not.”