DOCSLIB.ORG

The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2009–2010 HC 64

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2009–2010 HC 64 The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2009–2010 The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2009–2010 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 54(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 12 July 2010 HC 64 London: Stationery Office £19.75 © Crown Copyright 2010 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. ISBN: 9780102967203 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID P002373157 07/10 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2009–2010 4 Contents one two three four FOREWORD AND ESTABLISHMENT MISSION AND JURISDICTION APPOINTMENT INTRODUCTION OF THE COURT STRATEGY OBJECTIVES AND CASEWORK OF JUSTICES Foreword 06 Background 09 Mission 15 Rules and Practice 20 Process 30 Introduction 07 Legal creation of the 09 Strategic 15 Directions Review of the selection 30 Supreme Court objectives for the The procedure for 21 commission process Robes 10 Administration of the appealing: permission Justices of the 31 UKSC to appeal (PTA) Supreme Court Royal Opening 10 applications Emblem 11 Appeals 22 Carpets 12 Sitting days 22 Flags 12 Size of panels hearing 24 Middlesex 13 cases Cases and judgments 25 Supreme Court Annual Report 2009–2010 5 five six seven eight nine TRANSPARENCY AND A COURT ON AN CORPORATE SERVICES MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS OPENNESS INTERNATIONAL STAGE COMMENTARY Visits 34 International 39 Organisation and 43 Financial Position 53 Resource Accounts 57 Education 34 relationships Governance of the (Statement of Judicial Delegations 39 Administration Financial position) The exhibition area 35 of the Court Overseas 39 Results for the Year 53 Enhanced media 35 Organisation 43 (Operating Cost engagement Parliamentarians Governance 44 Statement) Our website 36 Lawyers and Law 40 Students Membership of 44 Comparison of Out 53 Filming of 36 turn against Estimate Other 40 Management Board proceedings and Committees (Statement of Visits Overseas 40 Parliamentary Supply) User group 37 Staff and recruitment 45 International 40 Statement of Cash 54 relationships Our staff 45 Flows and the Justices Getting the right 46 Statement of 54 people Operating Costs by A place where 46 Departmental Aim people want to work and Objectives Diversity and 47 Pension Costs 54 Equality Sickness absence 54 Information 47 Principle risks and 55 Assurance, Freedom uncertainties of Information and Data Protection Payment within 10 55 working days Information 48 Technology Auditors 55 Library Services 48 Disclosure to Auditor 55 Health and Safety 48 Sustainability 49 Building and 50 Accommodation Supreme Court Annual Report 2009–2010 6 foreword BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT LORD PHILLIPS I am pleased to write a foreword to this first But we have also recognised that the Annual Report on the Supreme Court of the creation of the Supreme Court presented United Kingdom. an opportunity for the Justices – as we now are – to look again at the way we carry out This report covers a momentous period our work. The report refers to some of for those of us who were Lords of Appeal the changes which have been introduced, in Ordinary. The creation of the Supreme including the way in which we deliver our Court marked the end of hundreds of years judgments. of judicial work conducted by the House of Lords. We are proud of that heritage and, As a result of the move we, and importantly in approaching the way we work in the all court users and visitors, enjoy greatly Supreme Court, have sought to maintain enhanced facilities over those which were elements of continuity with practice in the available to us within the constraints of the House of Lords. House of Lords. As Justices, we are clear that more people have been sitting in on our cases and, through their visits to the Court, learning more about our legal system. Supreme Court Annual Report 2009–2010 7 introduction BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE JENNY ROWE I have great pleasure in presenting my first in the United Kingdom in their important Annual Report as Chief Executive of the work at the heart of our constitutional Supreme Court. This report covers the period arrangements. In so doing we have worked from 1 October 2009 to 31 March 2010 and closely with staff who support the Judicial fulfils the statutory requirement on me in Committee of the Privy Council, who are Section 54(1) of the Constitutional Reform now co-located with the Supreme Court. Act 2005. The creation of the Court marked a This report covers an exciting and significant constitutional development. challenging six months. It includes statistics There is greater visibility of Judges and on casework and highlights some of the staff; but also significant opportunities for most interesting and high profile cases and engagement with lawyers, students and judgments. It also describes the nature and the wider public to enhance knowledge and extent of our engagement with the wider understanding of the United Kingdom’s public; as well as providing information judicial and legal systems. This report on administrative and financial matters, identifies the level of interest we have so far including our resource accounts. received. We are committed to building on that as much as resources allow. I would like to pay tribute to the very hard work undertaken by the implementation A particularly important part of my role is to team in the Ministry of Justice who created a build and maintain appropriate relationships strong foundation on which I and my team with all parts of the United Kingdom. In the have been able to build. I pay equal tribute to set up period prior to 1 October 2009 I visited, all the staff of the Supreme Court, whether and had discussions with, Judges, officials they came from the House of Lords, the and interested bodies in Scotland, Wales and Ministry of Justice or were recruited from Northern Ireland. I intend to maintain this elsewhere. Their unstinting efforts have pattern of visits for the future, and visited enabled us to deliver an effective and robust Scotland again on 25 and 26 March. administration to support the highest Judges Supreme Court Annual Report 2009–2010 8 Supreme Court Annual Report 2009–2010 9 section one establishment of the court Background refurbishment and renovation of the Middlesex In June 2003, as part of a wider range of Guildhall began, lasting until March 2009. constitutional reform which the then Labour The main architects were the firm of Feilden Government announced in order to make & Mawson and the main building contractors clearer the constitutional separation of were Kier Wallis. There was considerable powers between the Executive, the Legislature involvement from English Heritage and and the Judiciary, it decided to separate out Westminster City Council to ensure the historic the judicial and legislative roles of the House character of the building was preserved, as well of Lords, by creating a fully separate Supreme as the link with Middlesex (for example, the Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC). This Middlesex Art collection has been re-housed was to replace the Appellate Committee of in the building. See page 13). The building the House of Lords, which was composed of was handed back by Kier Wallis to the Ministry the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and which of Justice in March 2009 and fitted out for since 1876 had heard appeals in the name of occupation by the staff in early August 2009. the whole House from all the three separate jurisdictions of the United Kingdom (England Legal creation of the Supreme Court and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). The Supreme Court legally replaced the House of Lords on 1 October 2009 as the The creation of the Supreme Court was given UK’s final court of appeal, when the relevant effect in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act There followed a search for a suitable central 2005 (CRA) were brought into force. At a London location for the new court (a number ceremony in the Court on the same day, the of sites were considered), which resulted in former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were the selection of the Middlesex Guildhall, not sworn in as Justices of the new court. least because of its ideal location opposite the Houses of Parliament. This building was The Court consists of 12 Justices appointed by opened in 1912 to be the County Hall for Her Majesty The Queen. Eleven of the twelve Middlesex; and it functioned as such until the former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary became abolition of the County of Middlesex in the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United 1960s and the creation of Greater London. Kingdom on 1 October 2009. Lord Phillips, the Partly because the building had always had a Senior Lord of Appeal, became President of court sitting there in the shape of the Quarter the Supreme Court and Lord Hope, the second Sessions for Middlesex, it was handed over senior Lord of Appeal became the Deputy to the then Lord Chancellor’s Department President. The 12th Lord of Appeal, Lord and became a Crown Court centre, hearing Neuberger, was appointed as the Master of the criminal jury trials etc., for the next forty years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HR Map V28020 Sea Tint.FH11
    Pay and Grading: the DCA Deal Inverness London Aberdeen Barnet Edmonton Wood Green Enfield Harrow Hendon Haringey (Highgate) Waltham Forest Romford Snaresbrook Havering Ilford Redbridge Uxbridge Locations in Bow Barking Ealing Stratford Dundee Range 1 are Acton Harmondsworth Brentford listed below Woolwich Isleworth Greenwich Hounslow (Feltham) Richmond Upon Bexley Thames Hatton Cross Stirling Wimbledon Kingston Upon Bromley Thames Glasgow Croydon Edinburgh Berwick upon Tweed Sutton Hamilton Ayr Alnwick Court and Tribunal DCA Offices Morpeth Bedlington Blackfriars Headquarters: DCA / HMCS / Tribunals Bow St. Selborne House Gosforth Brent Newcastle upon Tyne Clive House Hexham Camberwell Green Blaydon North Shields Steel House Central Criminal Court Carlisle Gateshead South Shields Abbey Orchard St. Sunderland Central London Millbank Tower Consett City of London Durham Houghton Le Spring 30 Millbank Peterlee Clerkenwell Maltravers Street Bishop Auckland Penrith Hartlepool Highbury Corner 185 Marylebone Road Workington Newton Aycliffe Horseferry Rd. IL&CFP Darlington Teesside Scotland Office Whitehaven Guisborough Inner London Sessions House Wales Office Thornaby Whitby Lambeth Privy Council Marylebone Public Guardianship Office Kendal Richmond Mayor's & City of London Law Commission Middlesex Guildhall (Theobalds Road) Northallerton Scarborough Royal Courts of Justice Supreme Court Taxing Office Pickering Shoreditch Barrow-in-Furrness (Fetter Lane) South West Balham Statutory Publications Office Bridlington Southwark (Tufton Street) Harrogate
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Panel Selection in the Uk Supreme Court: Bigger Bench, More Authority?
    The UK Supreme Court Yearbook · Volume 7 pp. 1–16 Introduction JUDICIAL PANEL SELECTION IN THE UK SUPREME COURT: BIGGER BENCH, MORE AUTHORITY? Dr Daniel Clarry* Christopher Sargeant † 1 Introduction Now in its seventh year of publication, this latest volume of the UK Supreme Court Yearbook (`the Yearbook') reviews the jurisprudence of the UK Supreme Court (`the Court') in the 2015-16 legal year. As in previous years, the Court's caseload during this time has been broad and highly varied and significant discussion of many of the issues raised before it during the past twelve months can be found in the pages that follow. One interesting institutional aspect of the Court that continues to emerge in the disposition of its caseload is the determination of the size of the panel that will constitute the Court for the authoritative disposition of its caseload and the selection of Justices to comprise any such panels. On 8 November 2016, the Court announced that it had granted permission to appeal in R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (`Miller'),1 a case now popularly known (even by the Court) as `the Article 50 case' or `the Brexit case' in which the Court will determine an appeal by the Government from the Divisional Court that notice under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty of the UK's intention to leave the European Union cannot be given by the Prime Minister without the agreement of the UK Parliament.2 On any view, the Article 50 case raises a series of fascinating substantive questions, many of which will be considered in detail in our next volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Transition from Law Firm to Law School
    volume 48, number 3 Spring 2005 Making the LIKE SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE AT very different pressures. For me, the greatest Transition THE GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL pressure is thinking on my feet while law stu- from Law OF LAW LIBRARY, I have recently made the dents and public patrons stand before me Firm to change from law firm librarian to law school expecting instant answers. I have always pre- librarian. Every time I run into a library col- ferred a few minutes to quietly digest a problem Law School league, everyone wants to know what it is like before plunging in. I am forced to process the and what the differences are. Let me start off by issue, begin working on it, and keep talking Christine Ciambella offering the obligatory disclaimer – these opin- with the patron all at the same time. Like any- Access & Research ions are my own and do not reflect the beliefs thing else, I am getting better with practice. Services Librarian of my employer (present or former). I did solicit In the law firm I had the luxury of sending George Mason opinions from colleagues and am grateful for an attorney back to his/her office with the University School their insight and experience. The two settings promise to bring my research product to them of Law really are quite different, but I’m not prepared later that day. I am often able to do this with to say one is “better” than the other. professors (but not with students). In contrast During my career as a law firm reference to practicing attorneys, the professors generally librarian I specialized in legislative history.
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan Steering Group
    WESTMINSTER WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN Illustration credits and copyright references for photographs, maps and other illustrations are under negotiation with the following organisations: Dean and Chapter of Westminster Westminster School Parliamentary Estates Directorate Westminster City Council English Heritage Greater London Authority Simmons Aerofilms / Atkins Atkins / PLB / Barry Stow 2 WESTMINSTER WORLD HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN The Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including St. Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site Management Plan Prepared on behalf of the Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan Steering Group, by a consortium led by Atkins, with Barry Stow, conservation architect, and tourism specialists PLB Consulting Ltd. The full steering group chaired by English Heritage comprises representatives of: ICOMOS UK DCMS The Government Office for London The Dean and Chapter of Westminster The Parliamentary Estates Directorate Transport for London The Greater London Authority Westminster School Westminster City Council The London Borough of Lambeth The Royal Parks Agency The Church Commissioners Visit London 3 4 WESTMINSTER WORLD HERITAGE S I T E M ANAGEMENT PLAN FOREWORD by David Lammy MP, Minister for Culture I am delighted to present this Management Plan for the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site. For over a thousand years, Westminster has held a unique architectural, historic and symbolic significance where the history of church, monarchy, state and law are inexorably intertwined. As a group, the iconic buildings that form part of the World Heritage Site represent masterpieces of monumental architecture from medieval times on and which draw on the best of historic construction techniques and traditional craftsmanship.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court Of
    The Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) and The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC): A comparative learning tool This resource summarises some of the similarities and differences between the most senior appeal courts in the United States and the United Kingdom. This is an area often explored by students studying Law at Sixth Form/Further Education level. This resource is intended to encourage discussion within groups, and some questions are provided at the end to encourage you to think about the different approaches of the two courts. This resource is offered as material for schools and colleges and is not intended as a comprehensive guide to the statutory position of either Supreme Court or their practices. Queries about the work of UKSC should be directed via our website, www.supremecourt.uk. SCOTUS UKSC When was it The SCOTUS is over 200 years old and The UKSC is five years old and opened established? was established in 1789. on 16 October 2009. It is located in the former Middlesex Guildhall building. The Article III, Section 1, of the American grade II listed building was built in 1913 Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial and was renovated between 2007 and Power of the United States, shall be 2009 to turn the building into a suitable vested in one supreme Court, and in such home for the Supreme Court. inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The highest court of appeal for the UK used to be found in the House of Lords, The Supreme Court of the United States sitting as what was known as the was created in accordance with this Appellate Committee of the House of provision and by authority of the Lords.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System Citation for published version: Walker, N 2010, Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System. Scottish Government. <http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/299388/0093334.pdf> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publisher Rights Statement: ©Walker, N. (2010). Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System. Scottish Government. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 FINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SCOTTISH LEGAL SYSTEM Crown Copyright 2010 ISBN: 978-0-7559-8213-4 Further copies are available from Eli do Rego The Scottish Government Legal System Division 2nd Floor West St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG 0131 244 3839 [email protected] An electronic copy of the full report including
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court; Annual Report and Accounts 2013–2014 HC 36
    The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2015–2016 The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2015–2016 Annual Report presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 54(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 4 July 2016. HC 32 © Crown Copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@ nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected] You can download this publication from www.supremecourt.uk Print ISBN 9781474132770 Web ISBN 9781474132787 ID 11051611 06/16 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Front cover image © Kevin Leighton The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2015–2016 4 contents one two three four FOREWORD AND OVERVIEW: OBJECTIVES
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf; Last Access: June 24, 2014
    International Journal For Court Administration Vol. 6 No. 2 Thirteenth Issue ISSN 2156-7964 Rwandan Gacaca Court Rwamagana District, Eastern Province, Rwanda IACA The Official Publication of the International Association For Court Administration www.iaca.ws International Association For Court Administration International Journal For Court Administration International Association For Court Administration IJCA is an electronic journal published on the IACA website (www.iaca.ws). As its name suggests, IJCA OFFICERS focuses on contemporary court administration and management. Its scope is international, and the Editors welcome submissions from court officials, judges, justice ministry officials, academics and others Cathy Hiuser whose professional work and interests lie in the practical aspects of the effective administration of justice. President Jeffrey A. Apperson Markus Zimmer Philip Langbroek Linda Wade-Bahr Chief Executive Officer Executive Editor Managing Editor Technical Editor Hon. Vladimir Freitas [email protected] [email protected] President-Elect Sheryl L. Loesch Andreas Lienhard Luis Maria Palma Anne Wallace Leisha Lister Chief Administrative Officer Journal Editor Journal Editor Journal Editor Journal Editor Carline Ameerali Vice President, Europe Editorial Board IACA Journal Norman Meyer Vice President, North America Dr. Pim Albers, Senior Project Leader, Institute for Global Justice, The Hague, The Netherlands Andrew Phelan Jeffrey A. Apperson, Vice President for International Affairs NCSC, Virginia, USA, IACA Board Executive CEO Vice President, South Asia & Australia Dr. Carl Baar, Professor Emeritus, Brock University Adjunct Professor of Political Science, York University, Toronto, Collin Ijoma, Ontario, Canada Vice President, Africa Dr. Dacian Dragos, Jean Monnet Associate Professor, Centre for Good Governance Studies, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Mark Beer Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom
    Copyright 2014 by Erin F. Delaney Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 108, No. 2 JUDICIARY RISING: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Erin F. Delaney ABSTRACT—Britain is experiencing a period of dramatic change that challenges centuries-old understandings of British constitutionalism. In the past fifteen years, the British Parliament enacted a quasi-constitutional bill of rights; devolved legislative power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and created a new Supreme Court. British academics debate how each element of this transformation can be best understood: is it consistent with political constitutionalism and historic notions of parliamentary sovereignty, or does it usher in a new regime that places external, rule-of- law-based limits on Parliament? Much of this commentary examines these changes in a piecemeal fashion, failing to account for the systemic factors at play in the British system. This Article assesses the cumulative force of the many recent constitutional changes, shedding new light on the changing nature of the British constitution. Drawing on the U.S. literature on federalism and judicial power, the Article illuminates the role of human rights and devolution in the growing influence of the U.K. Supreme Court. Whether a rising judiciary will truly challenge British notions of parliamentary sovereignty is as yet unknown, but scholars and politicians should pay close attention to the groundwork being laid. AUTHOR—Assistant Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. For helpful conversations during a transatlantic visit at a very early stage of this project, I am grateful to Trevor Allan, Lord Hope, Charlie Jeffery, Lord Collins, and Stephen Tierney.
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL JUSTICE and TAXATION Ii
    i CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND TAXATION ii OXFORD MONOGRAPHS ON CRIMINAL LAW AND JUSTICE Series Editor: Andrew Ashworth CBE QC, Emeritus Vinerian Professor of English Law, All Souls College, Oxford This series aims to cover all aspects of criminal law and procedure including criminal evidence. The scope of this series is wide, encompassing both practical and theoretical works. OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES In Search of Criminal Punishment and Freedom Responsibility Alan Brudner Ideas, Interests, and Institutions Nicola Lacey Prosecuting Domestic Violence A Philosophical Analysis Character in the Criminal Trial Michelle Madden Dempsey Mike Redmayne Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays Preventive Justice of Criminal Proceedings Andrew Ashworth and Andrew L.- T. Choo Lucia Zedner A Philosophy of Evidence Law Homicide and the Politics Justice in the Search for Truth of Law Reform Hock Lai Ho Jeremy Horder The Criminal Justice System The Insecurity State and Healthcare Vulnerable Autonomy and the Right Edited by Charles A. Erin and to Security in the Criminal Law Suzanne Ost Peter Ramsay Rethinking Imprisonment Manifest Madness Richard Lippke Mental Incapacity in the Criminal Law Killing in Self- Defence Arlie Loughnan Fiona Leverick The Ethics of Plea Bargaining Richard L. Lippke iii Criminal Justice and Taxation PETER ALLDRIDGE Drapers’ Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of London 1 iv 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © P.
    [Show full text]
  • MIDDLESEX COUNTY RECORD OFFICE Records, 1774-93 Reel M581
    AUSTRALIAN JOINT COPYING PROJECT MIDDLESEX COUNTY RECORD OFFICE Records, 1774-93 Reel M581 Middlesex County Record Office 1 Queen Anne’s Gate Buildings Dartmouth Street London SW1H 9BS National Library of Australia State Library of New South Wales Filmed: 1964 HISTORICAL NOTE The Middlesex County Record Office evolved from the collection of records of Middlesex Quarter Sessions which the Clerk of the Peace was required to preserve, together with other records such as enclosure awards. At the direction of a committee of the justices of peace, the old records were first sorted and listed in the 1880s. The new Middlesex Guildhall at Westminster, which was equipped with muniment rooms, opened in 1913 and in 1923 a full-time assistant was placed in charge of the records. The first county archivist was appointed in 1946, initially on a part-time basis. In the late 1950s the record office moved into new premises in Dartmouth Street. In 1965 the new Greater London Council took over the record offices of the London County Council and the defunct Middlesex County Council. However they remained in separate premises until 1979, when the Dartmouth Street premises were sold. Both archives were then housed in County Hall. In 1982 the Greater London Record Office moved to a new building in Clerkenwell. In 1986 the Greater London Council was abolished and the record office became the responsibility of the City of London Corporation. Its name was changed to the London Metropolitan Archives in 1997. In addition to the Middlesex Sessions records, selected records held in the Greater London Record Office were filmed by the Australian Joint Copying Project and can be found on reels M3087-3105.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection Commission Information Pack
    Information Pack Vacancy for President of The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom Role Justices of The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom comprise the final Court of Appeal for all civil cases in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and for criminal appeals in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. With effect from 1 October 2009 the devolution jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been exercised by the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Justices of the Supreme Court also sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which forms the final Court of Appeal for a number of Commonwealth countries British Overseas Territories, and Crown Dependencies. There are 12 Justices, one of whom is appointed President and, one, Deputy President. Statutory background and jurisdiction The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was created by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the Act). Part 3 of that Act, along with Schedules 8, 9, 10 and 11 set out the jurisdiction and composition of the Court as well as provisions concerning the administration. Potential applicants will wish to note in particular the requirements at section 27 (5) of the Act that “selection must be on merit” and at section 27 (8) of the Act which says that: “In making selections for the appointment of judges of the Court the commission must ensure that between them the judges will have knowledge of, and experience of practice in, the law of each part of the United Kingdom”. A vacancy arises because Lord Phillips will be retiring at the end of September 2012.
    [Show full text]