TWO of Britain’s most senior judges infuriated the Government last night by calling its proposed changes to the constitution “second-class” and condemning asylum reform as a threat to the rule of law.

In a fresh sign of the strained relations between the judiciary and ministers, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said that plans for a supreme court to replace the House of Lords would create an institution that would be the “poor relation” of others around the world.

He also condemned plans to bar courts from reviewing asylum decisions, saying that would be a “blot on the reputation of the Government” that could trigger a campaign for a written constitution.

He questioned the “torrent” of constitutional change since Labour’s election in 1997 and, in an unprecedented personal attack, dismissed Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, as a “cheerful chappie”.

In an apparently co-ordinated attack, a second senior judge delivered his own scathing criticism of the Home Office and the Asylum and Immigration Bill, accusing the ministry of “attacking our democratic institutions”.

In a speech at the Inner Temple, Lord Steyn said that David Blunkett’s Bill was an astonishing measure that was contrary to the rule of law and to the principle of open justice for all citizens. “The draftsman has done an excellent technical job in carrying out the outrageous instructions of the Home Office,” he said.

He questioned whether courts would now be “helpless to protect this challenge to the structure of our democracy”, suggesting that, if so, Parliament could block the courts from checking executive abuse of power altogether.

Mr Blunkett, who has upset the legal profession by what it sees as his negative attitude towards lawyers, was clearly angered by Lord Woolf’s attack, but declined to respond. A Home Office spokesman, however, hit back saying that if the Government had been “cowed” by earlier criticism from the judiciary, it would not have been able to reduce asylum applications by half.

The spokesman said that Lord Woolf was entitled to defend the judiciary from radical reforms on his patch, but he also had a responsibility to come up with solutions. His speech contained plenty of criticism but few solutions.

Lord Woolf’s attack came as he delivered the Squire centenary lecture at Cambridge University. Referring to Mr Blunkett’s reform of the asylum appeals system, he said that it was “fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law”.

He backed calls from senior legal figures for a review of the asylum changes — which would bar failed asylum-seekers from going to the higher courts to have their cases reviewed. Describing Lord Falconer as “that engagingly friendly and cheerful chappie”, he went on: “I am not over-dramatising the position if I indicate that, if this clause (to remove asylum-seekers’ appeal rights) were to become law, it would be so inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect between the different arms of government that it could be the catalyst for a campaign for a written constitution.

“What areas of government decision-making would be next to be removed from the scrutiny of the courts? What is the use of courts if you cannot access them?” Lord Woolf also gave warning that the package of reforms could lead to the Home Office becoming too powerful, dictating the agenda of the courts.

Referring to the proposals to set up a supreme court, he said that the institution would not have powers to strike out legislation, as with the US Supreme Court, but would be subordinate to the will of Parliament. “Among supreme courts of the world, our supreme court will, because of its more limited role, be a poor relation. We will be exchanging a first-class final Court of Appeal for a second-class supreme court.”

However, he “reluctantly” accepted proposals for replacing the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary. The minister’s job was “increasingly politically charged” and subject to occasional conflicts of interest. Judges had now agreed a “concordat” to guard judicial independence but it would not provide the same level of protection as the Lord Chancellor’s role, he added.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs said that Lord Woolf was “right to say that the independence of the judiciary must be safeguarded” which was why the Constitutional Reform Bill imposed the first legal duty on ministers to uphold the independence of the judiciary.

“Central to the Bill is the principle that politicians have no place in the courtroom and judges have no place in Parliament. This separation of powers is vital to maintain public confidence in political institutions,” it said.

On the asylum proposals, the department added that the appeals system was “too long and too complex”. Cases could take 58 weeks, whereas under the new system they should be concluded in 12 to 15 weeks.

BEST OF FRIENDS?

‘There has been a rumour that I am not all that pleased with judges — this is completely untrue. I just want judges that live in the same real world as the rest of us, I just like judges who help us . . . ’

— David Blunkett, speaking last May

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Time-worn Freddie gives up Test matches
• Brighton company 'involved in cyber attack'
• The art of survival: it’s all in the mind