In a rare public statement, the Chief Justice, Anthony Dudley, has said that he will try and persuade the Government to reconsider its decision not to fund a third puisne judge. Mr Justice Dudley says this would enable the Supreme Court to “retain an element of flexibility.”

This follows the news that Adrian Jack, a judge brought in on a three year contract to clear a backlog of cases, would not have his contract renewed.

Mr Justice Dudley said:

“Adrian Jack’s 3 year fixed term appointment came to an end on 10 August 2017. During his time in the Supreme Court he demonstrated significant ability as a jurist and discharged his duties diligently and effectively. He will undoubtedly be missed.

“Over the past 10 years during which I have held the office of Chief Justice I have never had cause to make a public statement other than when sitting in court or at the Opening of the Legal Year. I am and remain of the view that members of the judiciary ought to avoid engaging publicly on issues which may be perceived as having a political dimension even when these, albeit obliquely, touch upon the administration of justice. On this occasion the issues that arise relate exclusively to the administration of justice and exceptionally I make this statement and detail the circumstances leading to the appointment of Mr Jack and comment on the fact that HMGOG has decided not to continue to fund the post.

“I do not purport to speak for the Judicial Service Commission, which is a Constitutional body chaired by the President of the Court of Appeal, and of which I am but a member. However, it is important to note that the Commission does not have a statutory role in relation to the funding of a post but rather tenders advice to HE the Governor in relation to appointments when there is a vacancy. Had HMGOG decided to continue to fund the third post of puisne judge it would then have been for the Judicial Service Commission to consider whether to extend Mr Jack’s appointment or open a competition for the post.

“The judicial complement of the Supreme Court needs to be seen in context. Between 1983 and 2010 it consisted of the Chief Justice and one puisne judge. In 2010 whilst the court building was undergoing a transformative change the complement was increased by the appointment of a second puisne judge to lead in family work. Over a number of years the volume of work in the criminal jurisdiction had increased and not least because of the lack of courtrooms there was a significant backlog in that jurisdiction. Consequently, following representations funding was made available by HMGOG in 2012 for a short term appointment of 2 years to assist in clearing the backlog of criminal cases. That appointment was in fact extended by a further 3 months. By the time that appointment came to an end I was of the view that it was desirable for there to be additional judicial support in the civil/commercial jurisdiction. HMGOG was persuaded to fund such an appointment. Whilst I do not comment on what may or may not have been said to Mr Jack at interview, it should have been apparent to all concerned that the appointment had been made to provide for the short term needs of the judiciary and was not a permanent increase to the judicial complement.

“I acknowledge that there has been a reduction in the number of actions brought before the court. A high of 416 originating applications in civil ordinary actions in 2010 falls to be compared with 195 in 2014 and 100 in 2016 (this year, to date there have been 85). Overall there is also a downward trend in the 2010 – 2016 period in the total number of actions in all areas. However, the workload of the court cannot be measured exclusively by relying upon statistics but it is also dependent upon the complexity of matters coming before the courts. Because we are demand led it is also useful to retain an element of flexibility which the extra judicial resource provides. Therefore, whilst I understand the decision not to fund the post of a third puisne judge at this stage, it is one that I will seek to persuade HMGOG to reconsider.

“I do not intend to make any further public comment on the matter but evidently will continue to discharge my duties pursuant to section 6 of the Judicial Service Act and make representations to HMGOG and / or Parliament as necessary.”