I suppose in essence a lot of people in britain at least will want to know because divorce has been available is it true in your view that were truly, in every legal sense, now on bbc news, hardtalk. Taking back control . I dont think we will know in this country since 1857, the answer to that until we know whats going to happen next. So it has never been indissoluble. Its complicated. Welcome to hardtalk, its very complicated. Im stephen sackur. In fact, even before 1857, well, im afraid, unfortunately, the law is quite complicated. The british legal system has long well, you can say that again. Enjoyed an International Reputation it wasnt indissoluble. For independence, integrity and efficiency, if you were rich enough and male but for how much longer . Enough, then you could get a divorce from parliament. But weve had divorce. And i want now, as were almost out the institution of marriage has not collapsed at all, of time, to bring you to one and thats very much illustrated seniorjudges, lawyers and police by the popularity of gay marriage extraordinarily, it seems to me, officers are voicing concern complicated and morally since it has been introduced. And ethically loaded question, about a judicial system close to breaking point. And that is about assisted dying, my guest today is the most assisted suicide, seniorjudge in the land, president of the uks Supreme Court, lady hale. Is one of the worlds most admired Justice Systems failing the people some people call it. It is supposed to serve . If i may, i want to talk about two hugely important cases that you have considered on the Supreme Court in recent years. You, again, personally one concerns brexit. On the Supreme Court have faced some its the so called gina miller case, difficult cases, the paul lamb case, which was a question before you as to whether the triggering of article 50, the procedure to get the Tony Nicklinson case. Us out of the european union, had to be approved or given the consent by the parliament. These are men, different cases, the government, the executive, felt they didnt need but desperate to be allowed to die, parliamentary consent. And in grave physical circumstances. You ruled in a hugely significant ruling that it did, the court has not given and as a result, you were them what they wanted assisted suicide, the right to die, because youre guided by law, pilloried by elements and youve concluded it would not be legal. Should the law change . Lady hale, welcome to hardtalk. You have had a seat well, there is an act of parliament on the Supreme Court since its Foundation Ten years ago. Of the conservative press. What did you take away from that entire process . That makes it a criminal offence well, lots and lots of things. It is something new in well, youre going to have to be the british constitution, do you think it is brief, so try and sum them up. To help somebody to commit suicide. Made a difference . Try and sum them up. Its made a bit of a difference. Well, firstly, the pillorying happened to the seniorjudges i would draw a very clear there was of course always a top who sat on the Administrative Court distinction, incidentally, between assisted Suicide Court for the whole United Kingdom, in the high court, who were labelled and euthanasia, killing somebody, but we used to be a committee enemies of the people. By the time it got up to us, however much they may of the house of lords. Thered been enough fuss about that and then in 2009 we became this brand new institution, for that not to happen. And another thing the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. We were televised, of course, so we moved out of the houses so people watched four days of legal argument, of parliament, across the square, realising that we were not debating into the old middlesex guildhall brexit or no brexit. Where we have a very beautiful, we were debating the fundamental want to be killed. Question, which is that only open, transparent, accessible building where we do the same job parliament can change the law. That we did before. So, if pressing the article 50 trigger would inevitably lead to a change in the law, then parliament had to authorise it. That was what we were debating, and that is interesting. And people realised that, that creation of a sort i think its a very important distinction. Of clear, blue water and they realised that it but we there is an act between you and parliament. Was a serious subject. Do you think it has changed they also realised we were going of parliament, and an act back to precious parliamentary 00 03 03,594 2147483051 38 16,512 sovereignty established 2147483051 38 16,512 4294966103 13 29,430 in the 17th century. Of parliament is the law, the Public Perception of the uks most senior court, the top so we could never have changed it. I was one of the two justices in the nicklinson case who said of the pyramid, if you like . That there is the right to choose the time and manner of your own death is part i dont know whether its changed of the right to respect for private the publics perception of us, life, which is protected under its certainly means the public the European Convention on human are more aware of us rights. The question, therefore, because they can watch what were is whether the absolute ban doing, they can wander in off on anybody helping you is a proportionate interference the square, you know, people do. With that right. Lord kerr and i thought that it was not, and that there was a solution that could be devised you were you judges sitting that would make it acceptable on the Supreme Court opened your proceedings up to both and protect the people who need to be protected. Livestreaming on the internet so thats that was my view. And the television, something 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. It is fascinating, and its complex. Was there a question in your mind i want to end with this one about the nature of public belief extraordinary quote from your fellow in confidence in the judicial Supreme Courtjustice, sitting with you on the bench, lord sumption. He recently said this of the assisted dying debate. System in this country . He says, i think the law should continue to criminalise assisted suicide, but i also think well, we are a very small part of thejudicial system. We are a sort of cherry at the top of the cake. We are only dealing in points of law that the law should be broken of general public importance, from time to time. It is an untidy compromise, were not trying criminals, but i dont think there is always were not trying civil orfamily a moral obligation to obey the law, cases. And ultimately it is for each person to decide. We are a second tier appeal court. Would you go along with that . So we are very different. No. Because . I believe the law but youre the ultimate arbiter, should be respected. And some of the most difficult but i believe the law should attempt to accommodate the different moral moral, ethical and legal cases in the land which have been tested, views that people will have 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 about the situation that were in symbolic terms, to the health of the entire system. Yes. And i put it you that the Health Talking about, so that those of the system right now does not who need to be protected are protected, and those look good. Who are genuinely autonomous, able to make their own decisions in fact, your predecessor as head without pressure, without anybody of the Supreme Court talked forcing them to do what they dont about what he saw as the imminent want to do, so that they can do breakdown of the rule of law in the United Kingdom today. What they want to do. Lady hale, we have to end there. Thank you very much for being on hardtalk. That is probably not something thank you. Thank you very much. That is appropriate for me to talk about while im currently in post as opposed to after i have retired but what i would say, was i really want to make clear, that there is a distinction between the law, the rules that hello. Constitute the law, which is what were concerned with, and the running of theJustice System that is the courts, well, after a fine end to the weekend, the forecast the tribunals, also the police, for monday is looking pretty decent the Crown Prosecution Service, all of that, which is something separate from what we are mainly concerned about. Across most of the uk. But would not be right to say that you have to care about the running of that system at all levels . A lot of sunshine in the forecast. Yes. Because in the end it comes back however, the week ahead is going to be quite changeable. To this word ive already used, i think many of us at one point confidence, and one of the fellow or another will get at least members of the Supreme Court, a little bit of rainfall. Now, heres the latest satellite lord reed, said just the other day picture, and clouds are gathering marking this ten Year Anniversary just to the north west of the uk, of the Supreme Court, 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 he said the greatest challenge ofjudging is perhaps to ensure and giving way to these weather fronts here in the atlantic. That all segments of the community have but the High Pressure confidence in the administration will be back later on, of justice. Once these weather so if there are big problems fronts push through. So the forecast on monday morning, developing in the administration then a lot of hazy weather there first thing across many ofjustice, from the bottom up, western parts of the uk, but i think itll start off clear you have to care about it. Of course we care, across much of scotland, of course we care. Eastern and southern but we parts of the uk. In fact, pretty chilly very early in the morning there in eastern its not something that its scotland and north east england. In our hands to do much about. Temperatures could be as low as two or three degrees above freezing, thats why i was drawing a real nip in the air. The distinction between the state of the law, which we can do now, heres monday morning itself, something about, and the state so pretty cloudy across ireland. Of the Justice System, Northern Ireland there getting rainfall for sure. Which all we can do is care belfast probably by late morning, early afternoon getting some and complain in the right way. Spots of rain. Nothing too heavy, but it will be well, i was going to say very damp, and then eventually that rainfall will reach south western you have the most extraordinary scotland, later in the day or come evening. The vast majority of bully pulpit because ultimately the uk, a bright day. You are the most seniorjudge bar a few showers there, in the land and if you see things going on, and lets maybe in the south, the weather get specific now. Lets talk about the way is looking sunny. Beautiful around the in which cuts to resource to the ministry ofjustice, English Channel coasts. To key programmes like legal aid, which give Financial Assistance to give legal representation how about the championships, to those then, at wimbledon . Who can least afford it. Beautiful weather when you see resources being taken out of that system, temperatures of around 20 degrees for example, it must concern you . Of course, of course. Because its essential to any celsius, light winds as well. Now, heres tuesdays Justice System that it is accessible weather forecast. To the people who need it. It looks as though well see High Pressure developing across the south now, i dont confuse access once again, but weather fronts moving through northern parts to justice with access to lawyers. Of the uk, so there is going to be a definite split between the north and the south. Theyre not necessarily the same well call it the northern two thirds of the country pretty cloudy, thing, but they often are. With a few glimmers of brightness from time to time. And so people who cant afford legal some rain for belfast, glasgow, probably many western and northern representation or legal parts of scotland too. A few spots of rain possible around help or legal advice, cause those the Lake District and yorkshire. Are three different things, ought to be able to have southwards of that, it should it in a good case. Just about stay dry, and so we do care about but pretty cloudy. The south coast itself on tuesday the difficulties in that system. Looking mostly on the sunny side. So, let me ask you bluntly and directly. Not cold temperatures even the hundreds of millions of pounds in belfast getting up to around 21 that the government has taken out degrees celsius, and if anything they could be peaking, of the legal aid system, what impact has it had those temperatures, at around 25 in the south, on the accessibility of the law, in london, come wednesday. Legal representation, but, on the whole, quite a bit to those who can least afford it . Of cloud around there. You can see these weather symbols showing some rainfall from time to time, too. Bye bye. It has had a considerable impact, because what happened was that 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 example. Now, most people, if they can go to a lawyer, they can get advice about what the law is and how its 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 direct and they dont have the help that would tell them how to do it. And so were up with a great many more people representing themselves in court when they wouldnt have needed to go there at all, had it not been for this. And how corrosive is that . Well, its corrosive in lots of ways. Its obviously corrosive of their relationship. And if youre a mother and father who are separating and you need to make arrangements for whats to happen to your children, you really need to stay on as good terms as you possibly can, because youre going to have to negotiate changes in those arrangements. They cant be set in stone forever. Thats an obvious example. So it is corrosive of relationships. It probably doesnt help in disputes between husband and wife, because if youre having to deal face to face as opposed to through with 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, im not a politician. Ive got to be very careful. I can point out what the problems are, and i can say that this is the briefing, im maryam moshiri. The government is perfectly well our top story aware of the problems. A landslide victory for greeces centre right opposition spells the end for the socialists but put it this way. Surely you do have a duty to say if you believe it to be true, and ushers in a new era. That if the wrong decisions are being reached, particularly in the family courts, where more and more people, i think its President Trump says the British Ambassador who labelled his team a fivefold increase in people representing themselves dysfunctional and divided because they cant afford a lawyer, if that means thatjustice is not being done, that the wrong decisions hasnt served the uk well. Are being made, you surely have to speak out about that . Accused of mass murder, rape, and abduction, congolese warlord bosco it may not be that the wrong ntaganda awaits a verdict decisions are being made, at the International Criminal court. Its just putting a different burden on thejudges. One hopes that the judges are still making the right decisions. Do you think they are . Deutsche bank downsizing. Well, im not in a position to say, one or another. You should ask the president of the Family Division. But he would probably say the judges are having obviously to do things that they didnt have to do before, and theyre having to do cases that they wouldnt have had to do before. And i think its more. Are the judges equipped im not quite sure what these things are that theyre doing that they werent doing before, but are they are equipped to do them . Obviously well, yes, but its 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, reduce it to what youre legally interested in, and then reach a decision. Now, tribunalsjudges have been doing a very long time, but the court 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 than i am. I know that the recently retired president of queens bench division, sir brian leveson, has commented on the criminalJustice System and the problems that it faces. Now, thats not so much the courts. That is the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and the resources to investigating crime and prosecuting it. Police cuts, 20,000 more in recent years. Thats right. Im fairly sure that thats what sir brian was commenting on, and i suspect that some of that would have been at the back of lord neubergers concern. Let me ask you something a little different, but very germane to your legal career, much of which was in academia, before you took one of the most senior positions in the land in a court. Youve always focused on family law, and in particular the way in 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 in family law, may i say. I spent my whole life really in a very 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 have 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 it is a great deal better than it was. Similarly, in the workplace, we had the equal pay act and the sex discrimination act in the 1970s, and 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. No, and one way in which it seems many women feel its not perfect is that the way in which 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. That the proportion of rapes that lead to criminal charges, that is rapes reported to the police that leads to criminal charges, has fallen to under 2 an extraordinarily low figure, which does seem to suggest that women are being let down systemically. It does. I agree with you. And what can the system do to rectify that, because this has been discussed for years . It has, and various things have been done to try and make things better under the previous dpp, but one, they took a different approach to assessing the likelihood of securing a conviction because the two tests that the Crown Prosecution Service subject any case to is the likelihood of a better than even chance of securing a conviction, and also the public interest. So they take those two things into account, but better than even chance of securing 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, you sat as one of the justices hearing a case concerning a woman 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 . I believe that the governments proposals, which are currently before parliament, so its obviously a matter for 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, or by showing adultery, or that the other person has behaved in a way that its not reasonable 00 16 26,975 2147483051 44 58,202 to expect the person to live 2147483051 44 58,202 4294966103 13 29,430 with them, which is in the case