Category: Criminal Justice

The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor, in London on 8 May 2024.

My Lords, Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to join you tonight.

I am, as you’ve just heard, the Lord Chancellor. It was a predecessor of mine who went along to HMP Wormwood Scrubs, and the Governor said, “thank you very much for coming” and “if you wouldn’t mind addressing the prisoners, please”.  He thought it was a bit strange, but that he had better do as he was told. Anyway, the prisoners were in the exercise yard, and they were looking at him – rather as you are now – and he was looking at them – rather as I am now – and he didn’t know how to begin, so he just said, “I’m delighted to see you all here.”  But I am, I am delighted to see you all here!

Thank you, Lord Grabiner, for inviting me, and for your kind introduction. I am told Lord Grabiner is standing down as Head of Chambers; but he is definitely not retiring from One Essex Court…or indeed defecting. I want to make that clear as well.

Thank you too to The Times and One Essex Court for organising and sponsoring this wonderful event.

Now, the essay question this year is about AI. I know some of you are worried that AI is coming for your jobs. After the local election results in Cheltenham, I’m not entirely unsympathetic…

But actually, being at the Times Law Awards reminds me that I’ve been in post for a year. This was the first event I spoke at as Lord Chancellor. By current standards a year’s not bad going – longer I’m told than at least three of the last ten Lord Chancellors. And about the going rate for a First Minister of Scotland.

But one of the consequences of becoming Lord Chancellor and being cloistered in the MOJ for a year, is that when there is a defection you find out about colleagues that you never knew existed…

And what a pleasure it is to be back in this extraordinary building. This is the place where Lady Jane Grey was sentenced to death, where Henry Garnet was actually executed as an accessory to the Gunpowder Plot. And just outside, beneath Guildhall Yard, lie the ruins of London’s first Roman amphitheatre where criminals were routinely put to death. To you that may sound like history. To me, it sounds like inspiration for a manifesto. I am joking, that was a joke. Seriously.

The essay question this year is topical. I won’t seek to add to the erudition in so many of these essays. Instead, I want to make a few observations about context: specifically, AI’s place as part of a gathering global lawtech revolution – a revolution in which we can credibly say that England and Wales is at the leading edge.

This jurisdiction has of course, long been fertile ground for innovation. It isn’t by luck, still less sentimentality, or tradition, that English and Welsh common law is used as the basis for over a quarter of the world’s 320 legal jurisdictions. It’s not out of habit that international businesses choose our law to govern their contracts, and our courts to settle their disputes. Nor is it mere coincidence that we have the largest legal sector in Europe, second only to the USA in the world rankings.

The success of our justice system for centuries has been underpinned by its ability to evolve, to adapt and to modernise, while never losing sight of its values and its standards.

And in that spirit, let us not see our current leading position as a high watermark. Let us instead see it as the springboard for further success. We must be relentlessly ambitious to increase our legal sector’s international market share.

We don’t want that simply for the sake of it, although getting one over on France is helpful from time to time! We do it because of what it can deliver for our people and our economy. We achieve that principally on the basis of our people. Our legal profession and our judiciary are rightly renowned around the world for quality and integrity. That will remain, of course, far and away our most precious asset. But increasingly important in future will be our ability to harness new and changing technology.

And what are our competitors up to?

In Singapore, the Supreme Court now uses a digital transcription system to capture court proceedings, meaning that transcripts can be turned around rapidly, including near real time transcription with annotations made by judges during hearings.

And they are developing a generative AI programme to help users of the Small Claims Tribunal to file claims by auto-filling the required forms and advising on possible outcomes and claim amounts, prompting parties to settle earlier or consider mediation.

In India, the justice system is embarking on one of the largest digital rollouts in history, computerising almost 15,000 courts and creating 7 digital platforms to provide real time information on case status, court listings and judgments.

In British Columbia, they have set up an online dispute resolution platform that supports parties to negotiate online and settle their cases without going in front of judges.

There are many other examples. But we should be confident in the ambitious approach we are taking on digital justice.

Last year, with the judiciary, I set out a shared vision for a digital justice system that gives citizens the option to resolve their disputes entirely online. One that harnesses technology – like AI – to guide people in what they need to do and when. And crucially, that clearly sets out all their options, including mediation and arbitration, so that people don’t end up in court unnecessarily. Sometimes the best legal advice is that your issue is not really a legal issue at all.

Meanwhile, we are, I believe, the first jurisdiction to have established an Online Procedure Rule Committee to set standards and govern our digital justice system. This is a genuinely historic step forward – one of the most significant since the introduction of the CPR in 1999.

Of course, all this hasn’t come from a standing start: it builds on the progress we are making in Lawtech, a sector that has grown dramatically in the last three years. The UK has become a global hub for Lawtech and a haven for innovators – supported by LawtechUK, an industry-led programme set up by the Government in 2019.

In that time, it has:

Created a LawTech accelerator to nurture start-ups and support them to access the legal market.

Created a Regulatory Response Unit to make it easier for startups to navigate the complex landscape of legal regulation.

Developed a ground-breaking feasibility study for an online dispute resolution platform for SMEs and so much more…

And take quiet pride that today we are home to some 43 percent of all lawtech startups in Europe.

That is not a coincidence. Lawtech in the UK benefits from a technology talent pipeline, a competitive tax system, a liberal regulatory regime and (dare I say it) Government recognition of the importance of innovation.

And let us also take pride in the fact that we also have one of the most open legal markets anywhere in the world, where any foreign lawyer can practice foreign and international law. As I said to the legal professionals at the Bar Council of India’s Conference in Delhi, which I was delighted to be invited to last year, I said to them that any one of them in the audience could jump on the plane back to the UK and start practising Indian and international law in our country the very next day.

And in that context, is it any wonder that London is now home to more than 200 foreign law firms from over 40 different jurisdictions. I believe, it’s a model for the open, globalist, enterprising country we should inspire to be.

Politicians are pretty good by and large at setting out the ‘what’ – the statistics, the achievements and so on. But I think we spend less time talking about the ‘why’. Why does any of this matter? Why is it important to stay ahead?

First, straightforwardly, of course it’s about the economic benefit, we shouldn’t be squeamish talking about that, our legal services drive prosperity – generating billions for our economy each year, around £34 billion gross value added in 2022 alone. At the same time, annual demand for lawtech products and services in the UK is estimated to be worth up to £22 billion a year – and only likely to grow further, and that’s of course important for the public services that we cherish.

Second, access to justice, so that citizens can vindicate their individual rights. Because a nation of laws must be, of course, one nation of laws – where legal remedies aren’t the preserve of those with the deepest pockets. Tech is our friend here, as we know from our work to digitise the courts system through our modernisation programme. More claims are being made digitally online, more quickly. And our new digital services – including for civil money and injury claims – have been used over 2 million times. That broadens access to justice.

Remember this as well. Many people in this room – people who have worked hard and focused on their practices, will also believe passionately in social mobility. When I was in practice at the Bar, I used to go in my wig and gown to tough inner London schools and do cross-examinations, do mock trials, and so on. And I remember one young man came with me to the Old Bailey, because I’d spotted that his cross examination was truly exceptional. He came to watch a trial and was absolutely transfixed by the whole thing. Five years later I was reminded by his school about him, and he’d won a place at Cambridge to read law. So, yours is a sector that can genuinely change lives.

Third, the rule of law – fundamental to our values as a nation. Keeping our justice system up-to-date means that the rule of law remains relevant as tech moves on. In simple terms, more people are able to use the law to vindicate their rights and to secure just outcomes. That strengthens the rule of law. And, because of our international standing, with litigants from around the world choosing England and Wales, I hope we can reasonably observe that it strengthens the international rule of law too.

That in turn strengthens our position and our voice in upholding the international rules-based order. Let me give you just a brief example. When I travelled recently to the United States, I met with Merrick Garland, US Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General, and Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice. And which is the nation that the US turns to as a trusted friend as we grapple with difficult legal issues, such as how to manage billions in immobilised Russian assets – is there a legal route to go from freezing to seizing? Which is the nation with the expertise they very often turn to, and did so in that case? It’s the United Kingdom.

Finally, let me touch on AI. I’m not going to drill into the detail of each of these essays, but one core theme shines out. By and large our winners believed that AI is a good thing – that its promise outweighs its threats. That’s also the Governments position – so there’s the kiss of death for your collective credibility….!

Harnessing the power of AI is, of course, a big priority for Government and the PM – backed by a £900 million fund and plans for a world-leading AI research centre in Bristol, which will make sure the UK is securing its leadership position in AI development.

And when it comes to legal services, LawtechUK, along with the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce and the Law Commission, has and continues to bring together lawyers, investors, technologists, and other experts to explore how Generative AI is shaping the legal landscape – and how we can use it to open up access to justice.

But as our essayists set out, if we’re to harness the benefits, we need to manage the risks. To gain public trust requires transparency, reliable data, and an understanding of how bias can accidentally be embedded – and how to prevent it, as well as protection against cyber security threats.

Again, the UK is playing a leading role with the PM convening a global AI safety summit last year. And we have signed an MoU with the United States, to work together to develop tests for the most advanced AI.

So, let me turn now to those finalists who entered this competition. My congratulations to you all. Your cases were powerfully and engagingly made, and it was a genuine pleasure to read them.

To produce such strong pieces of work, despite myriad demands on your time, says a great deal about your commitment to, and aptitude for, the law. You should all be very proud.

And if the standard of these essays is anything to go by, the future of our profession is bright. I look forward to seeing great things from you in the years ahead.

So, without further ado, let me announce our runners up. I’m going to ask you please to come up and collect your prizes – Jonathan Macarthy, Laura Wilson, and Jay Staker.

Next, our third prize winner is… Maximilian Mutkin

Second prize goes to… Jonathan Stelzer

And, finally, I’m delighted to announce our first prize winner…. Henrik Tiemroth.

And that’s your lot, thank you very much indeed.

The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in Washington, the United States, on 31 January 2024.

Friends, ladies and gentlemen.

It is a huge pleasure to be here in Washington DC and an honour to address this distinguished audience.

When Britain’s great novelist, Charles Dickens, who of course you all know, visited the United States in 1842, he wrote that on the occasions he encountered his fellow Brits here, the British displayed, and I quote ‘an amount of insolent conceit and cool assumption of superiority, quite monstrous to behold.’ I want to be clear that I am not intending to repeat that!

I’ll do so not least as an admirer of America, and a humble student of American history at university. It was there I was first introduced to the defining principle, first set out by John Adams, of America as a ‘nation of laws, not of men’. And also as a barrister – i.e. attorney myself – of the inalienable right of citizens to be defended in court however unpopular their cause, also indelibly demonstrated by John Adams in his famous defence of British soldiers in the eighteenth century.

The US today is, of course, a beacon of the values that our two countries demonstrate in the world – of democracy, of diplomacy and of deference to the international rule of law, and that’s what I want to focus on today: on the importance of the rule of law, the existential threats it faces, and how together we can – and indeed we must – face down these threats and emerge stronger.

What do I mean by the rule of law in the international context? The idea that all nations are bound by common rules and principles that govern the way we interact with each other, no matter our size or power. And it’s underpinned by mutual consent and agreement, peaceful resolution of disputes, and regard for international institutions.

My central argument is that we need to restate that these are not quaint notions to get dewy-eyed over, or trite phrases to trot out in seminars; rather they can be the guarantors of freedom, security and prosperity for all our people.

And it’s worth pointing out that the order has brought about an extraordinary growth in international trade – indeed, the volume of world trade has multiplied roughly 45 times since 1950, while worldwide living standards have almost tripled. So this is no tedious law lecture. It’s food in citizens’ stomachs.

But this is now under threat. The truth is we are in a global contest of ideas, a contest between rule of law nations like ours and those who offer an authoritarian alternative, a solution that says ‘might is always right’. And it means that a global post-war consensus, which we assumed was unshakeable now needs shoring up. But rather than letting complacency reign, we must reinforce the rule of law foundations on which it was built.

We don’t need a history lesson to remind ourselves how the international rules-based international order came into being in the long shadow cast by World War II. What’s important is that it lit the way towards a new era: one based on mutual consent and common obligation…  where states could resolve their disputes peacefully, act with restraint, and hold each other to account for their actions. It allowed us to achieve a depth of international co-operation that would have been unfathomable just a few short years before.

And this was properly expressed in the late George Bush senior’s visionary 1990 address to Congress following the fall of the Berlin Wall – which I was reminding myself of before I came here to America. As that authoritarian regime crumbled, he set out a vision of the world where in his words: ‘ the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak’.

But the world is very different today. The accord they worked so hard to build is not just fraying at the edges, it is threatening to break down altogether due to the actions of international actors – such as Russia and Iran. Many believed – and this is important – that it had a remorseless momentum… that it would inevitably draw rising powers into its orbit… that its future would grow and was guaranteed. I believe the illusion and assumption that nations would automatically see the benefits of the Rules Based International Order has been eroded. But why? Why has it been eroded?

The rule of law is being attacked on three fronts, contributing to this current crisis of consensus.

First, the agreements that have helped secure the world’s stability and success since 1945 are no longer respected. By ‘those agreements’ I am referring to the legally recognised borders that have been the guardian of peace over decades. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the starkest but not the only demonstration.  And of course, it’s from a country, Russia, which after all is the successor state to the Soviet Union which signed and for a time broadly abided by arms reduction treaties for the benefit of all humankind.

And looking further afield, when Hamas carried out armed incursions into Israel, butchering over a thousand innocent men, women and children in their homes and taking approximately 250 more as hostages, it was an unprecedented, and wholly unlawful assault.

Amid this growing normalisation of illegality, of states disregarding borders and flouting international law, hostile geopolitical spheres of influence and indeed axes are being formed and strengthened in direct opposition to the Rules Based International Order. Recent assaults on commercial cargo ships in the Red Sea by the Hamas-supporting Houthis are just one example of these deadly alliances in action. And why have the Houthis been able to wreak so much havoc in the Red Sea? Because they are backed by agents of chaos in Iran.

And all this geopolitical unrest brings me to the second threat to the rules-based order. The reality is that this unstable geopolitical landscape is making middle ground and non-aligned states feel caught in the crossfire of conflicts for which they bear no responsibility. They understandably fear the repercussions, and some are beginning to equivocate. Desperate to avoid the costs of dispute and conflict, states are left unsure which way to turn to seek reassurance, stability, and protection.

And we must ask ourselves whether sustained instability of the type we are seeing risks making states like these feel they have no choice but to enter into alliances which undermine the Rules Based International Order. These alliances are pursuing a zero-sum outcome through fear, rather than mutual prosperity through shared values. They not only undermine the rules based order, but could shift the balance of power so the contest of ideas about how we should be governed – whether through the rules-based system as we cleave to, or through the chaos preferred by our competitors – is lost. So it is imperative that we ensure that non-aligned states and rising powers make the right choice.

And what of the poorest and most vulnerable countries? This brings me to the third risk I think we must consider. Despite huge economic advances in the Global South enabled by the Rules-Based International Order, many of the poorest countries are struggling to protect their citizens from hunger, the effects of climate change and the impact of increased populations. That in turn can pull them into the orbit of authoritarian nations who offer them a quick fix.

While rule of law underpins prosperity, its absence feeds poverty, insecurity and instability. And for citizens, this leaves many feeling they have no choice but to leave their home country and seek better opportunities elsewhere in the world. This has led to record levels of migratory movements, and fuelled illegal migration. It is clear that unmanaged illegal migration disregards borders and is putting unacceptable pressure on the national systems of rules-based countries like ours – as countries whose sovereign legislatures believe in, and consciously have chosen to be part of, the order I refer too.  The actions of criminal gangs smuggling people across borders brings those very rules into disrepute, particularly if they are perceived to afford, perversely, an unfair advantage to those who break the rules rather than those who abide by them.

For rule of law countries in Europe, we are experiencing an influx of illegal migration. In the UK, that manifests as a steady stream of small boats across the English Channel bringing illegal migrants into our country. And in 2023, we saw a 36% reduction in the number of small boat arrivals compared to the year before, but we must continue to go further. Because we see dangerous tactics used by Organised Criminal Gangs to facilitate crossings and people who put their lives in the hands of criminal gangs. Too many perish. I know tragedies are also happening at your southern border.

So, what does all this mean for the rule of law, and, crucially, how we strengthen it?

Well as Thomas Paine put it in his rallying cry of 1776, “in America the law is king” – now those were heavily loaded words at the time. It meant, among other things, that the law is supreme. And if the law is supreme, it must have power, and if it must have power, it must therefore be respected. Put another way, it must be enforced.

That means ensuring accountability, it means consequences. And it means bearing down on those who commit international crimes, until justice is served.

And we can be proud of the leadership our two nations have shown. Together, we have, along with the European Union, established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, to support Ukraine’s Prosecutor General with funding and expertise in the domestic investigation and prosecution of more than 120,000 alleged conflict related crimes.

In 2022 the UK led a state party referral to expedite the International Criminal Court’s investigation into the situation in Ukraine, and we continue to support the ICC so it has the resources it needs to carry out its independent investigations. We welcome the recent legal changes here that have enabled America to assist the ICC’s investigation into the situation in Ukraine.

And we continue to fight international terrorism in all its contexts. The UK and US were right to stand up to the aggression in the Red Sea by carrying out air strikes on strategic Houthi targets in Yemen, and the international community clearly accepts that it was the correct course of action in the circumstances.

So, amid the contest of ideas, and conflicting narratives, it is incumbent on all of us – the UK, the US and our allies in the G7 and NATO – to show that the rules-based international order works and it is worth upholding.

While others cause chaos, as part of the International Rules-Based Order – as nations who believe in the rule of law – it is our legal systems that are the engine room for prosperity across the globe, supporting trade the world over. English common law and US common law are the basis for no less than 27 percent and 20 percent of the world’s legal systems respectively.

However, both international and domestic law must evolve if they are to meet the challenges posed by insecurity, and to win what I’ve called ‘the global contest of ideas’. Because, as Thomas Paine also famously said, “a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

In the UK, we are making clear once and for all that it is Parliament that should decide who comes to our country, not international criminal gangs. Through landmark emergency legislation, we will control our borders, deter people taking perilous journeys across the channel, and help end the continuous legal challenges filling our courts. We are a humane, welcoming nation but it’s fair that everyone plays by the rules.

Our legally binding removal treaty with Rwanda makes absolutely clear that individuals relocated will not be returned to a country where they might be placed in danger.

But above all, the principle of relocating people to another country to have their asylum claims processed is lawful – the UK High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court too have found it to be so. Indeed, the UN Refugee Agency itself has its own scheme for refugees in Rwanda, albeit not through treaty.

And look, the unique genius of the common law, of course, is its flexibility – its readiness to adapt and respond to societal changes and perspectives. As the UK Government has made clear, we need some of that same spirit when it comes to the challenge of uncontrolled migration, and the evolution of the rules-based system as a whole.

As countries that believe in the rule of law, it’s crucial for us to demonstrate that it works for citizens in our own countries. For our justice systems that means that while we update them to make them fit for the 21st century, we must do so in a way which strengthens the values and principles on which they are built.

Access to justice is a key part of that – probably the single biggest reason I came into politics – and the current era of rapidly changing technology is opening up new possibilities for improvement all the time. For criminal and civil justice, we must ensure that citizens can continue to access justice in ways that work for them today. And there are a number of important ways we can do this.

First, by making sure our legal systems adapt to a changing world – updating our legal frameworks to take account of advancing technology, and fostering environments in which our legal professionals are properly equipped to practise the law both now and in a more technologically driven future.

Second, by showing our communities and victims that criminal justice works – so that justice is not just done, but seen to be done. Whether that’s the worst offenders being imprisoned for longer, or those at the lower end of the scale repaying their debt to the communities they’ve wronged.

Third, by harnessing new technology to ensure that the order of the Court is properly enforced. In England and Wales, GPS and alcohol monitoring tags mean we can deliver tough community sentences, avoiding short, costly stints in prison which research shows do little to reduce reoffending. I’m looking forward to visiting New York this week to see similar projects in action.

Fourth, by developing digital tools to improve how individuals and businesses can access the law in ways that work for them, opening up early legal advice and support so they can, where appropriate, settle disputes outside of court.

Fifth and finally, by keeping pace with advancing methods of delivery, such as transformational technologies like generative AI, and fostering innovation and the growth and adoption of lawtech – so that we can maintain the attractiveness as destinations for global businesses that are a boon to both our economies.

In each area, there are opportunities; to improve justice for our citizens and to demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law; to show that we believe in its ability to make our societies fairer and allow them to flourish further; to show that we can evolve and adapt while our opponents remain rigid and dogmatic. These are some of the most powerful ways that we can make the case for the rules-based order.

So look, as others have said before me, the relationship between our two nations is not just special – it is essential. Because when we stand together in the face of the chaos that our opponents seek to create… when we pursue accountability for the wrongdoing that others wreak on their neighbours… we will win the argument for the international order that our predecessors worked so hard to build and which has served the world so well.

To end where I began, with Charles Dickens. As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed when she visited Washington in 1981, Dickens was right to say that the people here are ‘…hard to deceive, prompt to act, lions in energy.’ Those are the qualities we need, you and us – as we fiercely defend the rule of law and make the case for a more secure and more prosperous future in the world.

Thank you.