Thread by @MForstater

We are back after the break in #OpenJudicialCollege Maya Forstater vs Information Commissioner And Ministry of Justice And Judicial College

Naomi Cunningham (NC) continuing with cross examination of Amelia Wright (AW) of the Judicial College

NC: the Equal Treatment Benchbook is part of the Judicial College's remit?

AW: yes. It is a publication of the JC. It provides guidance to the judiciary. It is overseen by a judicial team. It is reviewed every 3 years.

NC - Judicial college summary of training events 2020-21 - appendix to the report.

an example - Fee paid employment judges induction training...

AW contains a selection of subjects

NC: does it conclude diversity and inclusion?

AW: yes we have a commitment to D&I

NC: would some of that training be delivered by external speakers?

AW: it is for judges to decide when they bring in external speakers

Example - employment tribunal external context - would that include external speakers?

AW: my role is not to get into the detail

NC: information held by judges for judicial purposes is not covered by FOIA. Mainly by judges for judges

We know that sometimes it is delivered by non-judges.

AW: It is up to judges to decide to bring in external speakers - we support with commercial procedures.

You refer to the 2007 statement on independence of the judiciary

NC: is it fair to agree that accountability of the jusdicidiary to the public is a good thing?

AW: that would be my personal opinion, and the statement sets it out

NC: reads an official statement... "what is accountability ... involves public dialogue and scrutiny"

There is nothing here you disagree with?

AW: it is not my place to disagree

NC: Judges can't be held accountable to parliament. They are held to account by appeals.

The duty to give reasons is a clear example of accountability. It facilitates appeals.

The crucial way of preserving judicial independence is that they cant be sacked for giving judgments the public or politicians dont like.

Their job is hearing cases.

They do that job in public view. Transparent justice.

You say as a matter of judicial independence is designed & delivered by the judiciary.
Is there something inimicable to judicial independence for judges not to be trained by external bodies

AW: it is for judges responsible for training to decide if external speakers are needed

NC: Would you prefer to say *all judicial training* is delivered by judges?

AW: it is important for black letter law training. But for skills based training, e.g. on leadership. Not all training is delivered by judges.

NC: it would be sensible to have external training e.g. on online digital, remote hearings - there is no sensible objections to that kind of external training for that purpose.

AW: it is a matter for the judiciary to decide

NC: you do say that the majority of training is provided by the judiciary.

There is a possible problem with external training if it addresses a judges core job.

AW: Training supports judges making decisions. It is for judges in their role in training the judiciary to determine whether external trainers are needed

NC p 327 MoJ letter sets out their position on FOIA application to training materials.

"the materials need to be free from influence of pressure groups to preserve judicial independence"

He is right?

AW: yes - it is for the judiciary to oversee it.

NC: letting pressure groups in would endanger judicial independence

AW: it is for the judiciary to decide

J- MoC... where is this going?

NC: the importance of judicial independence. It is relied on by the respondents.

NC: letting pressure groups deliver training is a threat to judicial independence

AW: it is for the judiciary to determine if it is consistent with judicial independence

NC: Gendered intelligence has given training to judges of the ET and IT - we know a certain amount about it because of the magazine article. We can see that it talks about people who see that the sex or gender they were assigned at birth does not match their feeling

This is highly contentious. The idea that people are assigned a sex at birth.

AW: yes i understand that there are different views.

NC: it says that the Equality Act is limited in definition of transgender- it is much broader than the Act

AW: this is a judicial publication. It is an inference that this was the content of the training. This is the judges reading of the law.

NC: the talk covered legislation. There were judges being trained by an external organisation which puported to tell them about the legislation they would apply

AW: training is overseen by judges. they consider is opinion & what is law & are very aware of judicial independence.

NC: reads: J core responsibility is to resolve disputes with impartiality - do you agree?

AW yes

NC: you say that any training delivered by & for the judiciary is outside of FOIA

FOIA response 6 December 2012 - judiciary is not a public body. all training under control of J

You say the public shouldn't know the cost, content of the training or which judges received it, for independence of judiciary.

AW: the question is does it come under FOIA. We say no because the judiciary does not come under FOIA.

We produce annual reports

NC: the core task of the J is resolving disputes. they do that in the full glare of publicity. Public can join hearings. No one suggests that open justice undermines judicial independence.

AW: yes. it is an important part of judicial accountability

NC: no one could sensibly suggest that judicial transparency undermines independence.

AW: preparing judges to hear cases, that is overseen by judges. It is important that the judiciary has that space to train.

End of questions from Naomi. No questions for respondents counsel

Questions from Tribunal member Rosalind Tatam about dual reporting of civil servants in JC to gov and to judiciary.

AW: JC is part of Judicial office which is part of the MoJ. Is it part of the MoJ?

We are an arms length body of the MoJ, but with different statutory perameters

We have a Chief Executive rather than a director. We have a Managing Board.

RT - it sounds like a department within a department
AW - there are statutory, constitutional differences.
HMCTs is an agency of MoJ

RT - your staff are civil servants?
AW - yes
RT - your staff organise venues? We use an agency
Does your staff approach external speakers? No the judges do
Invoicing of hotels? yes
Invoicing by speakers ? yes we process

You provide administrative support? Yes
The costs are covered by the MoJ? Yes. the Lord Chancellor allocates funding
Judicial listings and travel expenses are managed within HMCTs - how does that differ from judicial expenses? A: We don't pay judicial expenses.

Judicial appointments Committee is listed under schedule 1 - how would that differ from the JC?

AW: it is not my area of expertise

J- Lynn Griffin - who is it who determines training needs, and develops materials

AW: it is the judiciary

LG: There is mention of the faculty

AW: it looks at cross jurisdictional training - judiciary supported by educational experts. Sometimes delegated to the team.

Overseen by judges.

With respect to the directors of training the posts are advertised. appointments are are made openly - they are seconded and sit for 20% of their time

LG: The judges job is to hear cases and make decisions.
Are you familiar with the job descriptions of salaried judges? Would you know if those JDs are broader than making decisions.

AW: they have other roles. JC is a role. the JAC is another role.

LG: if a judge wants to get involved in training who decides?

AW: there is a system of appointments. Directors of Training are advertised. Decisions made by directors of training. My team support the process.

LG: you say "protected time"

AW: time when a judge doesn't sit.

Course directors are appointed by DTs, tutors are supported by course directors.

J- MoC - if I or my training lead was to ask for training for xxx who would decide?

AW: if it is a tribunal, the senior president of tribunal would need to determine.

Director of training would think about it - MOJ might need to provide more resources

MoC - who would decide

AW - ultimately the Lord Chief Justice.

MoC - If the MoJ asked you for detailed information would you give it to them

AW - i would judge the reasons - the financial reasoning not the content of the training

MoC - is your independence such that you could say "no".

AW - probably not . If they needed to know. But it is not practical for them to hold granular information. They would be required to give it.

That is the end of the judge's questions.

Naomi is asking about publication of the skeleton and witness statement. May need a formal application after lunch.