Judicial Liability and Judicial Pensions: Italy and Britain

One of the difficulties associated with developing a theory of judicial independence and accountability is that national practices and expectations vary so widely.

Last Thursday, the Italian government approved a draft package of measures to reform the Italian judicial system. Some – such as the proposal for a strict separation between judges and prosecutors – are arguably quite sensible. Not so positive, however, is the proposal that it should be possible to sue judges for violations of rights in the context of judicial decisions. According to The Guardian’s report, the proposals make judges and prosecutors subject to personal civil liability for acts committed in violation of rights in the same way as other state officials and employees’. The example given in the bill is of ‘unfair detention or other irregular limitation of personal liberty’.

The proposals have a long way to go before they can become law (and as they involve constitutional change, approval of both houses of the Italian parliament or a popular referendum will be required to ratify them). However, the real risk that this kind of regime would create a chilling effect limiting judges freedom of action – particularly when it comes to wealthy litigants or defendants with the capacity to sue at little personal risk to themselves – makes it a worrying one (although as the measure will be prospective if enacted, Silvio Berlusconi’s upcoming encounter with the judiciary will not be affected).

Back in Britain, Frances Gibb reports in The Times today that former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf, and three former Lord Chancellors, are fighting the Pensions Bill (currently going through the Lords) because of a threat to the independence of the judiciary (amongst other reasons). Part 4 of the Bill provides that the appropriate Minister may require judges to make contributions to the cost of their pensions (judges already contribute to the cost of benefits for their spouses and dependents).

At a time of austerity this issue is likely to be controversial. Other public servants facing redundancy and pay cuts may look wistfully at the terms and conditions of the judiciary and wonder why judges should not share at least some of the pain. And certainly the proposed measure does not threaten the independence of the judiciary to the same extent that the Italian proposal would. On the other hand we pay judges well, and protect them against reductions in salary, in order to preserve their independence and ensure the quality of those who serve on the bench. An effective pay-cut of 6% (Gibb’s figure) is significant by anyone’s standards. If, as Lord Woolf argued in the Lords, these measures will have a serious effect on judicial recruitment then the objections of those offering the perspective of the judiciary should not be dismissed out of hand.

The debate in the Lords continues.

2 thoughts on “Judicial Liability and Judicial Pensions: Italy and Britain

  1. Judges, like many in the legal profession – and more particularly the civil service – are extremely well paid in contrast to many who are bearing the brunt of the government cuts. If they have not, from this largesse, made adequate provisions for their retirement (as we have to) then the fault I fear lies with them.

    They should not receive their overgenerous pension out of the tax payers pockets.

    Many in the civil service of course, have a possible alternative source of income – they could retire on their EU pensions – seeing as some of their rabid support of the unpopular Unions of Europe and Britain is in direct contrast to the wishes of the people, one must assume that there is benefit in it for them from somewhere.

    • In the event that judges rule against the expressed will of the people and the government whose will ultimately prevails? If 9 unelected individuals get to block Brexit then ordinary people are powerless and there is no democracy in Britain. Once that becomes evident to the disenfranchised you have the fuel and the kindling for a revolution. All that’s needed is a charismatic leader to strike the match. Seems ridiculous? So did the idea of the French revolution to the aristocracy of the day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s