Politics
The New Statesman Interview - Lord Woolf
Published 16 October 2000
The new Lord Chief Justice gives Hindley hope of freedom and tells Blair and Straw: keep your hands off the law. Lord Woolf interviewed byMary Riddell
Lord Woolf of Barnes cannot be certain that he hit the right note during his recent appearance on the Jimmy Young show. "One always thinks that you risk sounding terribly plummy in that sort of programme," he says, conscious that lord chief justices - whatever their populist proclivities - may lack even the modest street-cred quotient required by Radio 2 listeners. At first meeting, the image is less that of a taxidermised Athenaeum luncher than a genial and unworldly classics don. He wears a baggy navy cardigan with leather-patched elbows, and his desk is eclipsed by bales of paperwork. The waitress who brings his camomile tea addresses him, deferentially, as "sir". If such window-dressing suggests old-fogeydom, then it misleads.
Harry Woolf, now 67, is one of Britain's most liberal judges, a cutting-edge reformer who, as Master of the Rolls, oversaw a seismic shake-up of civil justice. Beloved of colleagues, Woolf is said to be viewed more warily by politicians made cautious by his radical instincts. Timing, as much as credo, makes his appointment as Lord Chief Justice a landmark in the judicial landscape.
Since he was sworn in, in June this year, he has outlined his mission of user-friendly justice. Hence his (unplummy) debut on the JY programme, where he explained the new Human Rights Act. Naturally he did not stress that the act also bestows on the judiciary unprecedented powers to hold the executive to account. Woolf, more than any lord chief justice before him, has teeth. It is clear from this, the first interview of his tenure, that he intends to use them.
Within the next fortnight, he will deliver, in open court, the final tariff on Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, James Bulger's killers. Although he does not say so, the lead-up - lengthened by his wish to hear victims' voices - has been mired in frustrating delays, culminating in a row over legal aid involving James's father. "It's been held up because one parent [believed to be Ralph Bulger] has not been able to make representations. But I would be very disappointed if it is not delivered this month. It is later than I would like. I hoped it would go smoother than it has, and that both parents would be able to make representations in the time limit that I have extended and extended. But the first time is always more difficult than in subsequent cases."
Of those, there will be no shortage. Some time ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was unlawful for politicians to be involved in sentencing juveniles, a verdict that followed Michael Howard's 15-year sentence on the Bulger killers. As a result of the Strasbourg decision, the cases of 140 more youngsters detained at Her Majesty's pleasure will be reviewed.
Meanwhile, Jack Straw clings to having his say on terms for adult murderers, including the 26 "untouchables" for whom life means life. The Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine, has indicated that the government may occasionally refuse to follow judges' rulings on cases brought under the Human Rights Act. This has been construed as evidence that Straw, unbudgeable now, may decline to cede his powers to the judiciary after the first, inevitable adult test case. Woolf is unequivocal. Straw, he says, will have to give in.
"I do not see any home secretary, except in the most exceptional circumstances, being prepared to go to parliament and say: 'We want to pass legislation that is inconsistent with the Human Rights Act.' Jack Straw says that the ruling does not apply to adults. If he's wrong about that, I would expect him to do what he did with regard to juveniles. However reluctant he is, he will give way to it. He may not like it, but that is what he will do." And is Straw wrong in his interpretation of the law? "I would be very surprised if he proves to be correct," Woolf says, with deceptive mildness.
And what then for supposed irredeemables, notably Myra Hindley? "I cannot speak of her specific case, because the law could develop, and I may have to make a decision in her case," Woolf says. But he carries on: "I have, however, decided one previous case with regard to Myra Hindley. I suggested that the Home Secretary had not dealt with the matter correctly, but one has to accept the constraints of the law as it is [but soon, as Woolf has said, may not be] . . . My recollection is that I said you could not say . . . she would never be released. I said you could never tell what would happen in the future, so it is not performing your statutory duty to say: 'Life is going to mean life.' I said to her that the Home Secretary was entitled, at that stage, to say he was not going to release her. Equally, I said he was wrong in taking the view that life should mean life."
Given Woolf's conviction that Straw will have to relinquish sentencing power, the Home Secretary's no-release diktat on Hindley now sounds very shaky. For the first time, Woolf prevaricates slightly. "Look, I wouldn't want to . . . er, I'm trying to be helpful to you. If I express views, it would be inconsistent with me hearing the case. I always listen to both sides." Although his impartiality is unquestionable, it is hard not to infer both the strongest indicator so far that Hindley may hope for freedom and that the handling of her case reeks of injustice.
More broadly, Woolf opposes all mandatory sentencing. Giving discretion to judges, he argues, does not imply soft-touch solutions for, say, dangerous paedophiles. "It may be appropriate, if there is a very substantial risk to the public, to sentence someone to life imprisonment, set an appropriate period of punishment and then leave it to the parole board to decide when that person should be released." That is different from home secretaries throwing away the key. "It is very different. I see no possible objection to sentencing someone to life, as long as there is in place a proper, objective machinery for review. We do not have that at present in cases such as Myra Hindley's." As for Straw's proposal to lock up people indefinitely who have been convicted of no crime, but who have severe personality disorders, Woolf would be "very unhappy if the courts were drawn in to compulsorily sentence someone who has not committed an offence".
Tensions between judiciary and executive are hardly novel. Yet still it seems curious, long after Lord Chief Justice Taylor crossed swords with Michael Howard, to see a reprise under a Labour administration. Woolf learnt long ago how fallible politicians can be. As "Treasury Devil", he defended the Wilson government, often fruitlessly, on judicial review. A notable prison reformer, who prepared the 1991 report on the Strangeways riot, he cleaves to notions of rehabilitation and redemption. In private, he is an unassuming man who rides a bicycle and is seen in the local supermarket, doing the weekly shop for his family: his wife, Marguerite, and three grown-up sons. "I am a very ordinary person," he says. And still, despite an uncontrived air of almost priestly humility, there is the sense that Woolf is as steely as the job demands.
I ask him about the law and order measures outlined in Blair's party conference speech (zero tolerance of yob culture, £100 fixed penalty fines for drunken louts), and he is corruscating. "When legislation is not fully considered, it normally has very adverse consequences." And does the latest Blair/Straw package fall into that category? "It can fall very much into that category. I don't like fixed penalties because, for very minor offences, they can lead to very real injustice. Take a £100 fine. You might find that someone ends up in prison because they are in default . . . I personally think that is highly undesirable. Both the Prime Minister and the shadow home secretary have not been very successful when they have suggested people should pay on-the-spot fines." So should Blair think again on his revised yob strategy? "I just hope they will leave criminal justice alone for a while. There is a great danger that the system becomes punch-drunk."
As a sobering counterbalance, Woolf has argued fiercely in the Lords against Straw's proposal to lock up young offenders who have twice breached probation orders. "The Home Secretary . . . has agreed to amend it. It's not ideal, but it's a lot better than it was before."
Restricting trial by jury seems to him, despite talk of invoking the Parliament Act, to be a dead duck. "It looks that way, doesn't it? I don't get as excited as a lot of people about mode of trial. I have confidence in magistrates, but the ethnic minorities do not share that. We should have tackled that lack of confidence first." So was it a good thing that Straw's bill was killed by the Lords for a second time? "Yes. And I do think that the second attempt was worse than the first. Magistrates couldn't take into account the record of the person concerned when deciding on the mode of trial, which meant they would be operating in the dark."
This string of challenges and caveats should denote no gloom. On the contrary, Woolf - who has long argued for the incorporation of the Human Rights Act - foresees short-term hiccups preceding an age in which the fusion of English and European law will produce the fairest outcomes possible. He wants more female judges and more from the ethnic minorities, although not at the cost of "watering down standards". He would like to see an end to wigs and tights.
First, he will have to give his ruling on the Bulger case; the most combustible of modern times. I suggest it seems likely that he, the great rehabilitator, will have to frustrate Denise Fergus in her wish that her son's killers be punished in prison. Woolf could not possibly say, conceding only that the case is "difficult". Any day now, he will give his decision in public - adamant that judges must explain their decisions, palatable or not. Being Lord Chief Justice is not, in Woolf's view, a popularity contest. In the light of the gauntlets he has thrown down to Blair and Straw, this seems just as well.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by using the 'report this comment' facility or by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
