Transcripts For BBCNEWS HARDtalk 20240714

Audiences for womens football, particularly in europe and south america. Congratulations to them. Thats all. Stay with bbc world news. Its half past midnight. Now on bbc news, its time for hardtalk. Welcome to hardtalk, i must even starker. The british legal system has long enjoyed an International Reputation for independence stephen sucker, independence and efficiency, but by how much longer . Seniorjudges, lawyers and Police Officers are voicing concern about a judicial system close to breaking point. My guess today is the most seniorjudge in the land, president of the uks Supreme Court, lady hale. She is one of the worlds most admired is one of the worlds most admired Justice System is failing the people it is supposed to serve . Lady hale, welcome to hardtalk. You have been sitting for over ten yea rs, have been sitting for over ten years, it is something new in the courts institution, do you think it is made a difference . There was of course i was a top board for the whole United Kingdom, we used to be a committee of the house of lords. And then in 2009 we became this brand new institution, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. So we moved out of the houses of parliament, across the square, into the old middlesex guildhall where we have a very beautiful open, transparent, accessible building where we do the same job that we did before. And that is interesting. That creation of a clear, blue water between you and parliament. Do you think it has changed the Public Perception of the uks most senior court, the top of the pyramid, if you like . I dont know whether its changed the publics perception of us, its only means the public is more aware of us because they can watch what were doing, they can wander in the square, you know, people do. You judges sitting on the Supreme Court open your proceedings up Supreme Court open your proceedings up to both Live Streaming on the internet and the television. Unheard of in the british system, why . Because we thought it was important that people knew what we were doing. Its serving the people. Yes, i understand that. Was there a question in your mind about the nature of public belief in confidence in the judicial system nature of public belief in confidence in thejudicial system in this country . Well, we are a very small part of the judicial system. We area small part of the judicial system. We are a sort of cherry at the top of the cake. We are only dealing in points of law of general public importance, we are not trying criminals, were not trying civil or family cases and we are a second tier appeal court. A definite arbiter and some of the most difficult moral, ethical and legal cases in the land have been tested almost to destruction in the lower courts, they come to you for that final arbitration, so you matter a very great deal if not at least in symbolic terms to the health of the entire system. Yes. I put it you that the health of the system right now is not the good, in fact, your predecessor as head of the Supreme Court talked about what he saw as the imminent break down of the rule of law in the United Kingdom today. That is probably not something that is appropriate for me to talk about while im currently imposed as opposed to after i have retired in post, but what i would say, was i really wa nt in post, but what i would say, was i really want to make clear, is that there is a distinction between the law, the rules that constitute the law, the rules that constitute the law, which is what we are concerned with, and the running of theJustice System that is the courts, the tribunals, also the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, all of that, which is something separate from what we are mainly concerned about. But would not be right to say that you have to care about the running of that system at all levels . Running of that system at all levels . Because in the end it comes back to this word ive already used, confidence, and one of the fellow members of the Supreme Court, lord reid said just the other day marking this ten Year Anniversary was that the greatest challenge ofjudging is to ensure that all segments of the community have confidence in the administration ofJustice Community have confidence in the administration of Justice Community have confidence in the administration ofjustice lord reed. So if there are big problems developing in the administration of justice on the bottom up, you have to ca re justice on the bottom up, you have to care about it . Of course we care. Of course we care. But we its not something that is in our hands to do much about, that is why i was doing the distinction between the state of the distinction between the state of the law, which we can do something about, and the state of the Justice System, which we can do is care and complain in the right way. Well, i was going to see you have the most extraordinary pulpits because you are the most seniorjudge in the land and if you see things going on, lets get specific now. Lets talk about the way in which cuts to resource to the ministry ofjustice, two key programmes like legal aid which give Financial Assistance and legal representation to those who can least afford it. When you see resources being ta ken can least afford it. When you see resources being taken out of that system, for example, it must concern you . Of course, of course. Its essential to any Justice System you . Of course, of course. Its essential to anyJustice System that it is accessible to the people who need it. Now, i dont confuse access to justice with access to lawyers. They are not necessarily the same thing but they often are. So people who cant afford legal representation or legal help or legal advice, as those at three different things, or to be able to have it. And in a good case. And so we do care about the difficulties in that system. So let me ask you blu ntly that system. So let me ask you bluntly and directly. The hundreds of millions of pounds that the government has taken out of the legal aid system, what impact has that had on the accessibility of the law, legal representation, to those who can least afford it . It has had a considerable impact because what happened was any sort of public funding was withdrawn from whole areas of legal activity. Such as, for example, disputes between husband and wife for mother and father, just to give the most obvious examples. Now, most people, if they can go to a lawyer, they can get advice about what the law is and how it is going to affect them. They can get help with writing letters, making phone calls, doing negotiations and most times the lawyer can sort the problem out without having to get anywhere near a court. And so the withdrawal of that sort of help has meant that far more people are having to go to court because they cant possibly negotiate with one another to other directly and they dont know how to do it. So were up with a great many more people representing themselves in court, they wouldnt have needed to go at all if not for this. How corrosive is it . Its corrosive in a lot of ways. Corrosive in terms of their relationship. If you are a mother and father needing to separate and make arrangements as to what is to happen to your children, you need to stay on as good terms as you need to stay on as good terms as you possibly can because you are going to have the negotiate changes in those arrangements, they cant be according to the sentence forever. It doesnt help between disputes between husband and wife because if you are having to deal face to face as opposed to through the help of lawyers, its much harder. So your message to the government is what . That they need to put the money back into the legal aid system . Its not for me to give messages to the government. Im a judge, for me to give messages to the government. Im ajudge, im nota politician. Ive got to be very careful i can point out what the problems are, and i can say that the government is perfectly well aware of the problems. But put it this way, surely you do have a duty to say if you believe its a be true, that if the wrong decisions are being reached in the family courts where more and more people, i think it isa where more and more people, i think it is a fivefold increase in people representing themselves because they cant afford a lawyer, if that means the wrong decisions are being made, usually have to speak out about that . It may not be that the wrong decisions are being made, itsjust putting a different burden on the judges. One hopes that the judges are still making the right decisions. Do you think they are . Im not in a position to say one or another. Ask the president of the Family Division, he would probably say thejudges are Family Division, he would probably say the judges are having to do things they didnt have to do before and they are having to do cases that they wouldnt have had to do before. Soi they wouldnt have had to do before. So i think its more. Otherjudges not quite sure what these rings are that they are doing, they are equipped to do them . Well, yes, but it isa equipped to do them . Well, yes, but it is a different skill. Its a different skill acting as an umpire between two lawyers arguing each side of the case and then mutually listening to that and making your decision, to dealing with two litigants in person who dont know what theyre doing and you have therefore to get the story out of them, get the arguments out of them and reduce it to what youre legally interested in and then reads a decision. Tribunalsjudges interested in and then reads a decision. Tribunals judges have interested in and then reads a decision. Tribunalsjudges have been doing a very very long time but the courtjudges doing a very very long time but the court judges tribunal, doing a very very long time but the courtjudges tribunal, could judges have not been doing it as often as they now have to do. Do you see a system today that because of resourcing issues is very close to collapse . I dont see that. But it may. Others may be Better Qualified tojudge it may. Others may be Better Qualified to judge it done may. Others may be Better Qualified tojudge it done i am. I know that the recently retired president of queens bench division, sir brian levenson, has commented on the criminal justice sir brian levenson, has commented on the criminalJustice System and the problems it faces. Now that is not so much the courts, that is the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and the resources to investigating crime and prosecuting crime. Police guards, 20,000 more in recent yea rs. Crime. Police guards, 20,000 more in recent years. Im pretty sure that is what sir brian was commenting on andi is what sir brian was commenting on and i suspect some of that would have been at the back of lloyd newberger is concerned. Newberger pozner concern. Let me ask you about your career, you were in academia before you took one of the most senior positions in the land in a god. Youve always focused on family law and in particular the way in which the law is fair or perhaps not fairto which the law is fair or perhaps not fair to women. Do you believe that the law continues to fail women . There are probably ways in which it does. I havent spent my whole life infamily does. I havent spent my whole life in family law, may i say, i spent my life in a wide range of legal subjects. The only time i concentrated mostly on family law was the five years i was in the Family Division of the high court. But before and after that i had dealt with just about every area of the law. But, the law used to be extremely unfavourable to women in the family. It changed dramatically in the 1970s, it got a great deal better. And i wouldnt pretend that its perfect but its a great deal better than it was. Similarly, in the workplace, we had the equal pay act in the 1960s and the discrimination act in the 1970s. That changed a lot of things in the workplace and in the marketplace generally. Its hard to think back to how things were before that. But im not pretending its perfect. Know, and one way it seems its not perfect is the way women still are treated by the system when they report violent, sexual abuse against them, including rape. And the figures which we see in the british system today are still shocking. The proportion of rapes that lead to criminal charges, that is rapes reported to the police, criminal charges, has fallen to under 2 . An extraordinarily low figure. It does seem to suggest that women are being let down systemically. It does. I agree with you. And what can the system agree with you. And what can the syste m d o agree with you. And what can the system do to rectify that, because this has been discussed for years . It has on various things have been done to try and make things better and various, under the previous dpp, one, they took a different approach to assessing the likelihood of securing a conviction because the two test that the Crown Prosecution Service subject any case to tests, is the likelihood of a better than even this chance of security conviction and also in the public interest. So they take those two things into account. But a better than the chance of suing a conviction was always going to be problematic in rape cases. Let me ask you about a different aspect of the law as it affects men and women and families in their personal life, and that is divorce. Im very mindful that a few years ago on the Supreme Court use that as one of the justices hearing a case concerning a woman who was married to who marriage had irretrievably broken down, but her husband would not give her a divorce. And in the british system, the fault based system, unless he was prepared to accept fault, or at least one of them was prepared to accept fault and consent to a divorce, the divorce couldnt happen for at least five years, a formal separation. You upheld the lower courts rulings. You did not give the woman what she wanted, and yet you also talked about the way in which british divorce laws were in your word unjust. The government is trying to change them now. Do you believe they are being changed in a way that is going to make them just . |j are being changed in a way that is going to make them just . I believe that the governments proposals, which are currently before parliament, so its obviously a matter for parliament, would parliament, so its obviously a matterfor parliament, would indeed bea matterfor parliament, would indeed be a great improvement on the current state of our law. They would introduce no fault divorce, basically. Well, we already have no fault divorce, because the only ground for divorce is that the marriage is irretrievably broken down. The problem is, you can only prove it in one of five ways. Either five years separation, without consent, two years separation, with consent, two years separation, with consent, or by showing adultery or that the other person has behaved in a way that it is not reasonable for you to to expect the person to live with them, which is in the case you are talking about, or desertion, two yea rs you are talking about, or desertion, two years desertion, but nobody bothers with that because obviously two yea rs consent bothers with that because obviously two years consent will do. So most people, because they are anxious to get a quick divorce, rely on either adultery or behaviour. You but you both have to sign up to it. Well, you have to do not contest it. |j both have to sign up to it. Well, you have to do not contest it. I am going back a bit now, but you once wrote we should be considering whether the Legal Institution of marriage continues to serve any purpose at all. Well, thats a separate issue. Well, im intrigued by that. Well, ill talk about it in a minute. But what i wanted to say about the proposed change to the divorce law is that that would provide us with a more straightforward, more honest, a less adversarial system of divorce. And its almost identical to the one that the Law Commission when i was in charge of the Law Commissions programme for reform of family law recommended back in 1990. So im really delighted that the government is taking it forward. Now, ok. Just one final point on that. The small c conservative coalition for marriage says that the danger with all these changes is that would destroy the foundations, the fundamentals of marriage, till death do us part. Well, i dont believe that, because divorce has been available in this country since 1857. So it has never been indissoluble, in fact, 1857. So it has never been indissoluble, infact, even 1857. So it has never been indissoluble, in fact, even before 1857, it wasnt indissoluble if you we re 1857, it wasnt indissoluble if you were rich enough and mail enough, then you could get a divorce from parliament. But weve had divorce. The institution of marriage has not collapsed at all, and thats very much illustrated by the popularity of gay marriage since it has been introduced. If i may, i of gay marriage since it has been introduced. Ifi may, iwant to of gay marriage since it has been introduced. If i may, i want to talk about two hugely important cases that you have considered on the Supreme Court in recent years. One concerns brexit, it is the so called gina miller case, which was a question before you as to whether the triggering of article 50, the procedure to get us out of the European Union, had to be approved given the consent by the parliament. The government, the executive, felt he didnt need parliamentary consent. You ruled, in a hugely significant ruling, that it did, and asa significant ruling, that it did, and as a result, you were pilloried by elements of the conservative press. What did you take away from that entire process . Well, lots and lots of things. Well, you are going to have to be brief, so try and some them up. Try and some them up. Well, firstly, the pillory and happen to the seniorjudges who sat on the Administrative Court in the high court, who were labelled enemies of the people. By the time it got up to us, thered been enough fuss about that for that not to happen. And another thing we were televised, of course, so people watched four days of legal argument, realising that we were not debating brexit or no brexit. We were debating the fundamental question, which is that only parliament can change the law. So if pressing the article 50 trigger would inevitably lead to a change in the law, and parliament had to authorise it. That was what we we re had to authorise it. That was what we were debating. And people realise that, and they realise that it was a serious subject. They also realised we we re serious subject. They also realised we were going back to precious parliamentary sovereignty established in the 17th century. And ifi established in the 17th century. And if i may, one more question on brexit. Of course, the eu withdrawal act went into law, article 50 was triggered, and there is now, under the eu withdrawal act, a clear delineation of the powers of the british courts, and the fact that they are no longer answerable to. Will come brexit no longer be a nswera ble to will come brexit no longer be answerable to the European Court of justice. But it does leave some vague language about the way in which, in the future, the british courts can accept the guidance of all the rulings of the European Court, if they choose to do so. Is it clear in your mind what the relationship post brexit between the british courts and the European Court ofjustice will beer . Well, one cannot be entirely sure of that, until we know what, if any, transitional arrangements there are going to be. If there are no transitional arrangements, then we are transitional arrangements, then we a re left transitional arrangements, then we are left with the retained European Union law, which has been turned into uk law by the withdrawal act, and we are entitled, in the Supreme Court, to change that law if we are convinced that a decision of the Luxembourg Court should be changed, departed from. That, we can do. Otherwise, if relevant, we can take into account a luxembourg decision, a subsequent luxembourg decision. Yes, so theres an element of choice there. Well, only. Its very much a directed choice. I suppose in essence a lot of people in britain at least we want to know, is it true, in your view, that we are truly in every legal sense taking back control . I dont think we will know the answer to that until we know the answer to that until we know whats going to happen next. Its complicated. Its very complicated. Well, im afraid, u nfortu nately, complicated. Well, im afraid, unfortunately, the law is quite complicated. Well, you can say that again. And i want now, as we are almost out of time, to bring you to one extraordinarily, it seems to me, complicated and morally and ethically loaded question, and that is about assisted dying, assisted suicide, some people call it. You, again, unfortunately, personally on the Supreme Court have faced some difficult cases, the paul lamb case, these are men, different cases, but desperate to be allowed to die, and engraved physical circumstances. The court has not given them what they wanted, assisted suicide, the right to die. Because you are guided by law, and youve concluded it would not be legal. Should the law change . Well, there is an act of parliament that makes it a criminal offence to help somebody to commit suicide. I would draw a very clear distinction, incidentally, between assisted suicide and euthanasia, killing somebody, however much they may want to be killed. I think its very important distinction. But we there is an act of parliament, and an act of parliament is the law. So we could never have changed it. I was one of the two justices in the Tony Nicklinson case who said that there is the right to choose the time and manner of your own death is pa rt time and manner of your own death is part of the right to respect for private life, which is protected under the European Convention on human rights. The question, therefore, is whether the absolute ban on anybody helping you is a proportionate interference with that right. Lord kerr and i thought that it was not, and that there was a solution that could be devised that would make it acceptable and protect the people who need to be protected. So thats that was my view. The people who need to be protected. So thats that was my view. It is fascinating, and its so thats that was my view. It is fascinating, and its complex. I wa nt to fascinating, and its complex. I want to end with this one extraordinary quote from yellow Supreme Courtjustice, sitting with you on the bench, lords assumption. He you on the bench, lords assumption. H e rece ntly you on the bench, lords assumption. He recently said this of the assisted dying debate. He says i think the lord should continue law should continue to criminalise assisted suicide, but i also think that the law should be broken from time to time. It is an untidy compromise, but i dont think there is always a moral obligation to obey the law, and ultimately it is for each person to decide. Would you go along with that . No. Because . I believe the law should be respected, but i believe the law should attempt to accommodate the different moral views that people will have about the situation that we are talking about. So that those who need to be protected a re about. So that those who need to be protected are protected, and those who are genuinely autonomous, able to make their own decisions without pressure, without anybody forcing them to do what they dont want to do, so that they can do what they wa nt to do, so that they can do what they want to do. Lady hale, we have to end there. Thank you very much for being on hardtalk. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello. Well, after a fine end to the weekend, the forecast for monday is looking pretty decent across most of the uk. A lot of sunshine in the forecast. However, the week ahead is going to be quite changeable. I think many of us, at one point or another, will get at least a little bit of rainfall. Now, heres the latest satellite picture, and clouds are gathering just to the north west of the uk, in fact, streaming in into ireland right now, so that means that the skies will be pretty hazy across some western parts of the uk. And the High Pressure is moving away and giving way to these weather fronts from the atlantic. But the High Pressure will be back later on, once these weather fronts are pushed through. So the forecast on monday morning, then a lot of hazy weather there first thing across many western parts of the uk, but i think itll start off clear across much of scotland, eastern and southern parts of the uk. In fact, pretty chilly very early in the morning there in eastern scotland and north east england. Temperatures could be as low as two or three degrees above freezing, a real nip in the air. Now, heres monday morning itself. So pretty cloudy across ireland. Northern ireland getting rainfall there for sure. Belfast probably by late morning or early afternoon getting some spots of rain nothing too heavy, but it will be very damp. And eventually, that rainfall will reach south western scotland, later in the day or come evening. The vast majority of the uk, a bright day. Bar a few showers there maybe in the south, the weather is looking sunny. Beautiful around the English Channel coast. How about the championships, then, at wimbledon . Beautiful weather temperatures of around 20 celsius, light winds as well. Now, this is tuesdays weather forecast. It looks as though well see High Pressure developing across the south once again. But weather fronts moving through northern parts of the uk, so there is going to be a definite split between the north and the south. Well call it the northern two thirds of the country pretty cloudy, with a few glimmers of brightness from time to time. Some rain for belfast, glasgow, probably many western and northern parts of scotland too. A few spots of rain possible around the Lake District and yorkshire. Southwards of that, it should just about stay dry, but pretty cloudy. The south coast itself on tuesday looking mostly on the sunny side. Not cold temperatures even in belfast getting up to around 21 degrees celsius, and if anything they could be peaking, those temperatures, at around 25 in the south, in london, come wednesday. But, on the whole, quite a bit of cloud around there. You can see these weather symbols showing some rainfall from time to time, as well. Bye bye. Welcome to newsday on the bbc. Im mariko oi in singapore. The headlines this hour three months on from the attacks in new zealand, the bbc uncovers the shadowy Online Network the far right uses to organise. Jubilation for team usa as they win the womens football world cup for a record fourth time. Im kasia madera in london. Also coming up in the programme skirmishes on the streets of Hong Kong Police clash with protesters after a day of peaceful demonstrations. The past few hours, a group of about 1000 protesters have been blocking one of the main roads here, nathan road, now the police have declared itan road, now the police have declared it an illegal gathering. Theyve moved in in full riot gear and i moving the protesters out. And, making the great wall of china great again why one of the worlds most popular Tourist Attractions is getting a makeover. Live from our studios in singapore and london, this is bbc world news. Its newsday. Good morning. Its 8 00am in singapore, 1 00am in london, and noon in christchurch, new zealand, where its been three months