The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

I think there's a great deal in what you say, but could I test it in this way, Dr Cable? Let me start from not a quasi-judicial position but a judicial position, because I'm rather familiar with that territory. I might have a view on wind farms or nuclear energy or a whole range of topics, on approach to terrorism, yet that view is a view simply as a member of the public, as somebody who reads newspapers, watches the television, lives in our society.

When I come into court and consider by way of judicial review the exercise of my judicial responsibilities, then I am focusing on a set of tramlines which are very constrained, and my personal view, whatever some newspapers might think about why judges decide cases, is neither here nor there. There is room to consider are the right considerations taken into account, the whole Wednesbury business, but that's an exercise that's entirely feasible.

Now, if I take your planning example, I could well understand that local authorities and councillors who are responsible for their city or their neighbourhood would be able to take a holistic view against a planning policy about a particular development, but I have no doubt that if a councillor lived on a housing estate that might be specifically affected by a particular decision, the councillor would probably say, "Maybe I should be involved in that decision"; would that be right?

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech