Tag: Alex Chalk

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.

The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Secretary of State for Justice, at the Mansion House in London on 18 July 2023.

My Lord Mayor, Lady Mayoress, my Lord Chief Justice, members of His Majesty’s judiciary, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you, Lord Chief Justice for your kind words. It is of course a special honour to be speaking to you as Lord Chancellor. But can we all please spare a thought for at least three of your number here who led me at the Bar and are now feeling really, really old…

So much has happened for all of us in the last decade. In 2013, I was at the Bar at 6KBW College Hill. It was a different time entirely; as a busy practitioner I confess I didn’t always pore over every dissenting Court of Appeal judgment; unaccountably, I find them absolutely compelling today.

And it was in 2013 that I was selected as the Conservative candidate for Cheltenham. It wasn’t going terribly well. Door after door was opened by people who said they knew who I was, but added that although I was better than my brother, they weren’t going to vote for David Miliband either. When I fed that back to HQ they came up with what they assured me was a brilliant plan. They would send down the then-Mayor of London to boost my profile. Even then, I was aware that this could be a high-risk strategy.

I thank Lord Burnett for his speech.

The Lord Chief Justice has shown himself ready to serve in so many ways. He attended a Commonwealth conference in 2022. On the second night the hosts announced that the judges would be called to dance by rank, starting with Chief Justices, and starting with England & Wales.

My source tells me that Lord Burnett did not hesitate to get to his feet, to the delight of the hundreds watching on. His Private Secretary still has the footage available in, I am told, clear contravention of a judicial order. There will be an auction at the end of the evening.

Few in peacetime have been tested as Lord Burnett was. He showed leadership to help keep the courts open during Covid, in a judgement that was vindicated. He has promoted transparency, in particular broadcasting of sentencing remarks in the Crown Court. He has increased engagement with the public and students. And he has championed modernisation, digitisation, diversity and recruitment.

MPs and peers of all parties hold him in the highest regard. Parliament, his profession and indeed the nation owe him a debt of gratitude and wish him well for whatever comes next.

I want also to thank those of you who sat during the pandemic.

You did so despite the fact that many of you, I’m sure, will have come under pressure from concerned friends and family not to come into court, not to put yourselves at risk. ‘Why you?’ they will have said; to which the only answer was that fate put you there, at that unique moment of jeopardy for our justice system and yours was the task to do.

Thank you for all you did. Covid has a long tail when it comes to the courts, and plainly there are still significant pressures as the system heals – from family law (public and private) to the employment tribunal. But let us remember that those pressures would have been immeasurably greater without your efforts.

I want to turn to some other points, and I’m pleased to say that No.10 were so delighted that I was attending this event that they even helped me draft this part of speech. So, turning to our five priorities…

I recently visited Japan for the G7 Justice Ministers Conference. It was immediately clear just how strong the relationship is between the UK and Japan, and the importance that is attached by that country and indeed the ASEAN countries (from Malaysia to Singapore) to our playing our part in the Indo-Pacific.

Now, that importance isn’t wholly or even mainly underpinned by the strong and growing military and industrial alliance through our collaboration with Japan on the Global Combat Air Programme – important though that is. Instead, absolutely at the heart of our offer to the Indo-Pacific and indeed to the world is our strong legal capabilities and tradition of upholding the rule of law – as demonstrated by Japan’s enthusiasm to single out the UK to sign a memorandum of cooperation on law and justice, including on our legal sectors.

Because it is well understood internationally that our country has historically contributed a great deal, perhaps more than any other, to the development of private international law through the Hague Conventions, with their network of jurisdiction and mutual enforcement arrangements. It is also acknowledged that the UK has the biggest legal sector in Europe, second only worldwide to the United States, a sector that continues to thrive.

And our international counterparts recognise that our common law system enjoys an endless potential for modernisation to respond to the latest trends, technologies and dispute flashpoints. The common law is ancient, yes, and yet relentlessly contemporary.

Against that backdrop, we will of course assert this advantage, we will press for strengthened cooperation and exchange in legal services. That will help grow our economy and generate extraordinary opportunities for young people from this jurisdiction to go as far as their talents will take them – promoting the social mobility agenda which brought me into politics. Thank you to the judiciary, the Bar Council and the Law Society for what you are doing to support this endeavour.

But in truth it’s about more than that. Despite the undoubted commercial opportunities, we will prioritise this agenda because every time we advance a PIL agreement, every time we improve access to a foreign legal market, every time we secure that exchange event between lawyers we strengthen the international rules-based order. In the Indo-Pacific and in the wider world, we must recognise that the argument for the rule of law is far from settled. That part of the world, as well as being the crucible of global economic growth over the coming decades, is also the crucible of competing visions. It is in some ways the epicentre of a global contest. And in that contest, free societies have to demonstrate that the rule of law matters – and ultimately it makes societies safer, and citizens freer and better off.

So we will continue to speak up for the rule of law. We will make clear in the context of Russia’s unlawful full-scale invasion of Ukraine that might is not always right, that the international rules-based order counts for something, and that there are consequences for those who violate recognised borders.

And we are putting resources behind our words. Quite apart from being the second largest provider of military support to Ukraine after the US, we have delivered war crimes investigation training to Ukrainian police on behalf of the ICC, we have provided training for Ukrainian judges led, by Sir Howard Morrison KC, and allocated additional funding to support ICC investigations.

But as well as advocating the rule of law abroad, we must show focus and vigilance to maintain it here at home. Although deep-rooted in our society, it must never be taken for granted. It requires care and effort to keep it in good health – particularly in an era of social media and disinformation which throws up new, dystopian misinformed challenges.

So, the starting-point is to make the case for why it matters – to bring it to life in terms that are accessible to all. In my swearing-in speech I stated that the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and access to justice aren’t quaint, obscure notions to pay lip-service to – but the essential building blocks of a safe, fair and prosperous society – as relevant today as in any year of the modern era.

And what access to justice and independence of the judiciary mean in practice is walking out of court as an advocate or litigant having lost, and knowing deep down that despite your disappointment you have been heard by judges of formidable intellect and unimpeachable integrity. And you have had a full and fair hearing. That is inestimably precious.

So what must we do to nurture it?

Well, in the first place, show respect to its key custodians. The Government is pleased to have been able to accept in full the PRB pay recommendations, including the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendation. In doing so, the Government is sending I hope a clear message about its deep regard for the judiciary, and the value attached to the essential work that you do.

Second, I believe very strongly that we must invest in the infrastructure of the courts estate. The physical condition of the buildings that discharge justice matters. It is difficult to uphold the dignity and authority of the law, important by the way to promote the small matter of compliance with court orders, when there is a bucket catching drips in the corner of the room.

It is equally difficult as a practitioner to feel proud of the profession you have worked hard to join as you open your case to the jury in Isleworth (as I did in the past) and know that all anyone is thinking about is the overwhelming smell of damp in the carpets. (Those have been replaced by the way).

Poor maintenance impacts capacity of course – but it also corrodes morale. And we need that morale, not least to unwind the pressures Covid created. It is only by sustaining and growing pride in the justice system and pride in the legal profession that we will continue to retain the practitioners we need and attract the brightest and the best to join. Every improvement in infrastructure sends out a ripple of confidence, through robing rooms, chambers and into university lecture theatres; and it enhances the overall attractiveness of the profession. Notwithstanding the £185m spent on court maintenance in the last two years, and the extra £38m in the last financial year for redecorations and deep cleans, we can go further. It’s a point I raised on my first day in office. I have prioritised it since, and I look forward to being able to say a little more in due course.

Third, we must be vigilant in clamping down on those who would misuse our courts, absorbing capacity with bogus lawsuits cynically designed to intimidate journalists and campaigners, and stifle freedom of speech. So I am pleased that we have acted through amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to create an early dismissal process in respect of spurious SLAPPS which are connected to financial fraud and corruption – the overwhelming majority of actions.

Fourth, we should take every opportunity to promote access to justice. And let me say that legal aid plays an important role in delivering that. So I am pleased that we have published our response to the Legal Aid Means Test Review, which when fully implemented will lead to over six million more people falling within the scope of legal aid.

All this we do and more. As a junior minister in the department, I devised ELSA (Early Legal Support and Advice) as the umbrella term for a suite of proposals to improve access to justice. Politics is the art of the possible, and we won’t get everything done overnight. But I will give it my all.

Fifth, we must abandon for good the outdated complacency that assumes all those who rise to positions of responsibility in our country are experts (or at least experienced) in the inner workings of our constitution. We should dismiss what has come to feel like a conspiracy of romantic hopes that through their education and wider upbringing people somehow acquire osmotically an understanding of the balance of our constitution, the conventions that secure it and – yes – the boundaries.

And yet, this is something that as a society we devote little or no effort to. Despite the fact that new legal practitioners receive ethics training as part of their preparation for practice, for those entering public life there is no such guidance or investment at all. There should be.

And so, with a general election due in the next 18 months, preparations should be made to ensure that Members of the next Parliament and the people they work alongside, are given the assistance and information they require. As the President of the Supreme Court noted earlier this month, and I agree, maintaining the rule of law is a joint responsibility of Parliament and the courts. Far from being a contest for power between the two, we have a shared commitment and we should support each other in delivering it.

And in that spirit we must work together to support the parliamentarians of the future. Precisely how that support is framed will be a matter for discussion and careful thought. But it shouldn’t be put off.

Finally this. I know there are real pressures in the system. I have referred to them already. I know that despite the Magistrates’ Court snapping back fast, the caseload in the Crown Court is high.

That is in part a function of the fact that we didn’t abandon jury trials, even when some suggested we should. That was manifestly the right decision. Because jury trials remain the lamp of our liberties, and the ultimate guarantors of fair trials which enjoy the public’s confidence. But we have to recognise that this had a consequence, and the sheer volume now is at least in part the price we pay for principle.

We will do all we can to help. We have removed the cap on sitting days for two years in a row, ensuring the Crown Court can sit at maximum capacity. We have passed the PCSC Act so that remote hearings can continue, where appropriate. 24 Nightingale courtrooms have been extended beyond March 2023 to provide additional capacity. We expect criminal legal aid spending will increase by approximately £141m per year in a steady state.

We are recruiting up to 1,000 judges across jurisdictions. And we have raised the statutory mandatory retirement age to 75 for judicial office holders, estimated to retain an additional 400 judges and tribunal members.

But I am acutely conscious that it is you and the practitioners that you see in your courts and tribunals that will do more than anyone else to bear down on these volumes, and do so in a way that delivers justice.

So I want to thank you for what you have done, but all that you will do. It is not easy I realise.

We use the adjective ‘world-beating’ sparingly these days. But excessive diffidence is to be avoided too. It is entirely reasonable to point out that we have a judiciary that rightly enjoys enormous respect globally – and not just for the quality of its dance moves. In terms of sheer intellectual horsepower and fundamental fairness it stands out.

And it is underpinned by unswerving professionalism. To serve in our courts, as judge or practitioner, is to follow a vocation – to know that you are part of something extraordinarily precious, something far more important than any one of us. And it means all of us, whether judge, practitioner or Lord Chancellor are united by a common desire to serve, and leave the system of justice in our country stronger for our having been here. That is what you might call, my ‘overriding objective’.

Thank you for your attention. Let me close by offering a toast to our hosts – to the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress.

Thank you.

The statement made by Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman) and I are pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing a progress report two years on from the publication of the end-to-end rape review action plan. This is the fourth six-monthly progress report on implementation, and demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to be transparent and accountable to the public on our progress in delivering the ambitions of the Rape Review.

The data in the report provides clear evidence of progress to drive up police referrals, charge rates, and Crown court receipts. We are making sustained progress towards the rape review’s ambition to return volumes of cases being referred to the police, charged by the Crown Prosecution Service, and going to court, to at least 2016 levels. It is well documented that the charge rate and volume of convictions for adult rape dropped drastically after 2016 due to a range of factors, not least a lack of join-up across the system, and the criminal justice system overcorrecting following a small number of high-profile disclosure failures. A return to 2016 levels is ambitious, marking a year where adult rape convictions were 30% higher than in 2010. The latest data shows that we have hit two of our ambitions already, and remain on track to hit the other:

Adult rape cases referred by the police to the CPS—for either early advice or a charging decision—continue to increase, with 1,079 total police referrals in the fourth quarter of 2022, exceeding our ambition of 766 and up by 134% from the quarterly average in 2019, when the Rape Review was commissioned.

Adult rape cases charged by the CPS have been increasing, with 472 suspects charged between October and December 2022, close to our ambition of 538 and up by 93% from the quarterly average in 2019.

The number of adult rape Crown Court receipts continued to increase in the first quarter of 2023 with 605 Crown Court receipts, exceeding our ambition of 553. It is also up by 162% from the quarterly average in 2019.

And despite the barristers’ strike impacting court action in 2022, adult rape prosecutions continue to rise, up 44% in the last calendar year, almost double what was achieved during 2019, and higher than the volume achieved in 2010.

Key achievements over the last six months include:

Introducing the landmark Victims and Prisoners Bill to Parliament in March, bringing forward measures to better serve victims and the public.

Legislating through the Victims and Prisoners Bill to ensure requests for third party material, such as therapy notes, or medical, educational and social service records are necessary and proportionate.

Recruiting 20,000 additional police officers, having brought in a net increase of 20,951 officers across England and Wales since the launch of the recruitment campaign in 2019, ensuring the police have the resources available to dedicate capacity to priority issues such as rape.

A second round of Government funded procurement—with a value of £4.2 million—of technical capability to retrieve digital evidence—when it is the least intrusive means to do so—from mobile phones at a time and place convenient to the victim has been completed and is being deployed to forces.

The Law Commission publishing its consultation into the use of evidence in trials involving sexual offences.

Today we are also announcing that through the specialist sexual violence support project, we will ensure that any adult rape victim at Newcastle, Leeds or Snaresbrook Crown court who needs it has the option to remotely observe the sentencing hearing for their case, through video link, subject to judicial agreement. This will give victims the opportunity to see justice done without the distressing experience of attending court alongside the defendant’s family or supporters. This builds on other work to improve the victim experience at court, including legislation to permit the remote observation of sentencing hearings and allowing victims to pre-record their evidence and spare them the trauma of attending court in person.

Operation Soteria is an ambitious joint Home Office and CPS programme to transform the way that rape investigations and prosecutions are handled and progressed, with a focus on investigating the suspect rather than the victim. Through close collaboration between frontline policing, prosecutors and academics, the programme has developed new national operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences. All police forces in England and Wales have committed to implement this new approach and will be supported to do so by the Home Office, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who are establishing a joint unit to oversee implementation and monitor progress. In addition, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue has been commissioned to conduct a thematic inspection on forces’ implementation of the model.

While strong progress has been made, we made clear in our last progress report that the rape review action plan is a start and must remain dynamic and continue responding to the challenges that victims face. We recognise there is still more to do, which is why we are setting out our action plan until December 2024, ensuring we continue to deliver improvements to the criminal justice system’s response to rape.

These publications form part of the Government’s ambition to ensure access to justice, improve the experience of victims and make our society safer for everyone.

The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor, at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 25 May 2023.

My lords.

Thank you to the Lord Chief Justice for that welcome.

It’s more than I deserve – and it’s more than I’m used to frankly…

You mentioned my Lord the number of Lord Chancellors. You’ll be aware of course that between 1678 and 1689 there were seven Lord Chief Justices. So we all have our rough patches.

My Lord, there will be more to say in due course as your retirement draws closer, about your extraordinary career and contribution to the law. For now I hope it can simply be noted that you are held in the highest regard across the House of Commons, including by the Justice Select Committee.

Members of all political parties would wish me to thank you for your many years of service to the law and latterly to the courts and tribunals. Parliament wishes you well for the next chapter, wherever it may take you.

It is the greatest pleasure to see so many friends and distinguished colleagues from the Bar here today. Those that have led me, those that I’ve led. I do hope that you were intending to come to this swearing-in and you’ve not stumbled into Court 4 by mistake.

I always knew my colleagues at the Bar were brilliant lawyers and advocates, literally some of the finest this country has produced. What I hadn’t quite appreciated before I entered Parliament is that they were such expert political pundits too. Over recent years I have been pleased to receive regular political insights from colleagues via text message – although some have included Anglo-Saxon words that I don’t understand…

Let me put on record my particular thanks to my pupil supervisors from 6 Pump Court where I first became a tenant and 6KBW College Hill (I had to resign my tenancy and undergo a second pupillage, all very complicated…) I want to thank them for instilling in me as a junior barrister the core principles that underpin our legal tradition: in particular that abiding priority of fairness.

From the very start of my career I did more prosecuting than defending, and I well understood from my very first appearance for the Crown that prosecutors are bound to act as ministers of justice, with an overriding duty to preserve and promote the overall fairness of the proceedings – not simply to win at all costs. But before anyone misunderstands me, and any of our friends in the media present today, let me stress that fair prosecutors are very often the most deadly – and I’m looking at some of them now.

I remember leading a young barrister from 6KBW in the prosecution of three councillors for election fraud. We were prosecuting, but I couldn’t attend for the cross-examination of D3 as I had an appeal listed in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. When I came back, I listened to the tape. Once I’d got over the grim realisation that it was considerably more skilful than my cross-examinations of D1 and D2, I was able to appreciate it for what it was – calm, courteous, scrupulously fair…and utterly devastating. All in the finest traditions of the English & Welsh Bar.

Now, the appeal hearing that kept me away that day took place in this very courtroom.

I experienced then as I waited for the hearing to be called on that tingle of apprehension that I always did whenever I had to appear in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a tingle rooted in respect. Respect for the quality of this tribunal; respect for the ruthlessly searching analysis that every advocate knows is to come.

Candidly, it’s partly too because I lost rather more often than I won in this court. Over time I became increasingly skilled at detecting my doom before it was confirmed. In the case of Soe Thet my spirits lifted as I heard Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers open his ruling to note that I had “argued a difficult case with admirable clarity and eloquence”… before finding against me on every single point. I soon learnt that compliments tend to spell catastrophe.

But more importantly, a message sunk in about the true meaning of some of the aphorisms that get bandied around – the rule of law, access to justice, independence of the judiciary.

Because when you appear in this court you soon realise that these aren’t quaint, airy notions to pay lip-service to – but the essential building blocks of a safe, fair and prosperous society.

What access to justice and independence of the judiciary mean in practice is this: as you walk out of this court having lost, you know deep down that despite your disappointment you have been heard by judges of enormous intellect and unimpeachable integrity. And you have had a full and fair hearing.

It is difficult to overstate how precious that is.

And so, as I sit here as your Lord Chancellor with responsibility for our justice system, I am aware of the responsibility I hold. It’s like carrying a Ming vase – ancient, priceless… but also fragile – and doing so whilst walking across a polished floor.

It would be easy to feel overawed. After all, I’m following in a line that includes some greats (Sir Francis Bacon and Ken, now Baron, Clarke spring to mind).

But it’s quietly reassuring that there are some absolute howlers in that list.

Richard Rich who was Lord Chancellor under Edward VI is remembered for being immoral, dishonest, a perjurer and a man “of whom nobody has spoken a good word.”

I hope I can modestly improve on that.

So what will this Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State prioritise?

As the Prime Minister has made clear, this Government will act to protect the public. That includes, of course, working to expand capacity in our justice system.

We will redouble our efforts, working with the independent judiciary, to manage and reduce the court and tribunal caseload, speeding up access to justice for litigants and victims. In doing so, we will continue to tackle violence against women and girls. Prosecutions for adult rape continue to rise remarkably following some very hard work by counsel, prosecutors, court staff and others; charges are up over 90% percent compared to the quarterly average in 2019 pre-Covid.

Second, we will progress the Victims and Prisoners Bill, with its emphasis on ensuring entitlements contained within the Victims Code 2020 are promoted and secured.

Third, we will play our part in operationalising any immigration legislation that Parliament is minded to enact. We will do so whilst being careful to provide individuals with the due process which is the hallmark of our legal system. The rule of law requires that illegality has consequences, but it also requires that individuals have the proper opportunity to make representations in their own cause.

Fourth, I will work to promote access to justice. As a parliamentary under-secretary of State, I devised a concept called ELSA – Early Legal Support and Advice – and I will be seeking out opportunities to drive that agenda forward. It is access to justice that empowers individuals, strengthens society and bolsters the rule of law.

I take very seriously the oath that I have sworn today.

I swear it as someone who sees this very much as a destination job, whatever Quentin Letts might say. That’s important because I believe that occupiers of this sensitive position in our constitution shouldn’t be looking over the political horizon. Nor indeed, should they be looking over their shoulder.

And, as your Lord Chancellor, I will do everything I can to uphold the judiciary’s hard-won reputation for excellence, integrity and independence.

But this role is not all about interactions with the judiciary, important though those are. I am responsible for over 90,000 prison officers, probation officers, HMCTS staff, LAA staff and others. And I want to say a few words to them.

First I want to thank you for what you delivered during the pandemic. You are the ones who ensured that neither our courts nor our tribunals ever closed completely. Thanks to you vulnerable litigants were able to access justice and get the orders they needed to keep them safe. Thanks to you, ours was one of the first – if not the first – jurisdiction to resume jury trials. (We believe in jury trials by the way, even if others seem to be having a bit of a wobble…)

But perhaps above all that, I want to note the quiet miracle that you delivered in our prisons. Many have already forgotten that at the start of the pandemic, Public Health England and Public Health Wales predicted around 3,000 deaths in custody. In the event the total was less than 300. Every one remains a tragedy for the individual and families involved, but the fact is that there are thousands of people alive today who would not have been if prison officers had not done their duty and come to work – when no doubt concerned family members were begging them not to. The same is true for probation officers who worked hard to manage risk in the community.

So let me conclude with this.

One of my predecessors, Francis Bacon, observed that, “if we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.”

Let us turn to the task ahead. I as Lord Chancellor will do my duty. And I know that all of us, whatever part we play, will join today in committing to maintaining that justice, endeavouring to leave the rule of law in our country stronger for our having been here.

Those are my submissions.