In a special award to recognize the fifteenth anniversary of the competition, an Anniversary Speaker’s Prize was awarded to Vanda Yakir of the University of Zagreb.

Both speakers will have the opportunity to enjoy a short stage at the Court of Justice to the European Communities in Luxembourg and the winning team from Warsaw will visit the University of Cambridge at the start of the next academic year

 To reinforce the public's perception of independence, the Supreme Court will be situated at the Middlesex Guildhall on Parliament Square, a move away from the House of Lords where the current Appellate Committee is located.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for establishing the Supreme Court.

On 12 June 2003 the then Prime Minister announced the government's intention to remove the jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and transfer it to a new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. This move will enhance the independence of the Law Lords and increase the transparency between the top levels of the UK judicial system and Parliament.

The UK Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and will officially come into being on 1 October 2009. It will replace the House of Lords in its judicial capacity and assume the jurisdiction of the House of Lords under the Appellate Jurisdiction Acts 1876 and 1888. The Supreme Court will, with a few exceptions, be the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom (see 'what the court will do', below). The Supreme Court will also have jurisdiction in relation to devolution matters under the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1988 and the Government of Wales Act 2006; this was transferred to the Supreme Court from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The court of final appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown Dependencies, and for those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to the Queen in Council or, in the case of republics, to the Judicial Committee.

The Judicial Committee is also the court of final appeal for determining devolution issues under the United Kingdom devolution statutes of 1998 and it has certain other domestic jurisdiction within the United Kingdom.

The Supreme Court, as well as being the final court of appeal, plays an important role in the furtherance and development of UK law and will only select cases that have an element of wider public interest.

The Supreme Court will:

• hear appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance
• act as the final court of appeal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
• hear appeals from civil cases in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland
• hear appeals from criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
• assume the devolution jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, while the Commonwealth jurisdiction of the Council will remain unchanged.

The Supreme Court will hear appeals from the following courts in each jurisdiction:

 England and Wales

• The Court of Appeal, Civil Division
• The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
• (in some limited cases) the High Court

 Scotland

• The Court of Session

 Northern Ireland

• The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
• (in some limited cases) the High Court

 Transferring the jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to a new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom will enhance the independence of the Law Lords and increase the transparency between the top levels of the UK judicial system and Parliament.

 To reinforce the public's perception of independence, the Supreme Court will be situated at the Middlesex Guildhall on Parliament Square, a move away from the House of Lords where the current Appellate Committee is located.

 The UK Supreme Court will be situated in the Middlesex Guildhall on Parliament Square, Westminster.

The building, most recently a Crown Court, is being renovated to make sure it provides accommodation fitting for an institution of this calibre. When the court opens it will be open to the public during working hours. It will also take part in the annual Open House London Weekend where visitors will be able to explore 'behind the scenes' and have access to some of the areas that are normally not open to the public.

 For further details, see the Ministry of Justice’s web-site and, in particular, the following link: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/uksc.htm

 Most records are used by government for a number of years and then either destroyed (if they are of no further use) or kept closed to the public for various reasons until they are 30 years old, at which point they are made available to the general public. This is knows as the ’30 year rule’.

 Following the entry into force of the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000 (which entered into force in 2005 and was intended to signal the beginning of “open government”), government departments and agencies may be required to disclose documents to the public at an earlier stage. Nevertheless, the PM (Gordon Brown) announced a review to consider whether the 30 year rule should remain as the starting point for assessing whether or not government information should be revealed to the public.

 The Prime Minister asked Paul Dacre, working with Professor David Cannadine and Sir Joseph Pilling, to chair an independent review of the '30 year rule', under which most government records are released. The review team considered how to balance openness and security within government, and in particular examined the impact of the Freedom of Information Act. The review team's final report was published in January 2009 and is available from the following link: http://www2.nationalarchives.gov.uk/30yrr/30-year-rule-report.pdf

 For further information about the Freedom of Information Act see
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/RightsAndResponsibilities/DG_4003239

 The following represents a brief description of the 30 year rule.

 What is ‘the 30 year rule’?

The phrase ‘30 year rule’ is commonly used to describe the point at which records created by government departments are transferred to The National Archives, and at which most of these records are released to the public. In fact there is no single ‘rule’, but two rules that work together:

 The Public Records Act, which requires government departments to transfer records to The National Archives by the time they are 30 years old

1. The Freedom of Information Act, which requires most records to be released to the public by the time they are 30 years old

 The Freedom of Information Act states that records should be released unless a specific exemption applies.  Exemptions (for example, ‘formulation of government policy’) fall away after certain periods of time, mostly at 30 years.  Therefore, many records that can be kept closed while they are under 30 years old have to be opened when they reach the point of 30 years after creation. Most records transferred to The National Archives are either already open, or are opened at 30 years.

 What is the history of the ‘30 year rule’?

Before 1958, there was no public right of access to government records. The Public Records Act 1958 introduced a '50-year rule', which required that records transferred to The National Archives (then called the Public Record Office) be opened at 50 years unless there were specific reasons not to do so. This was soon felt to be too long a period, and in 1967 this period was reduced to 30 years.  The backlog of material aged between 30 and 50 years was released from 1968.

The next big change happened as a result of the Freedom of Information Act.  Until this point, there were no legal criteria for keeping records closed after 30 years – a Minister had to seek the approval of the Lord Chancellor for extended closure.  Over time, a number of criteria for extended closure – national security, foreign relations, the economy, personal privacy etc. – were developed, but these had no basis in law.

 There were also inconsistencies. For example, some very personal records (the World War I Soldiers’ Records) were opened while soldiers were still alive, whereas other personal records (census records) were kept closed for 100 years.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 codified the reasons why records could legitimately be closed after 30 years, and stated that records falling outside these ‘exemptions’ were therefore deemed open.  One effect was that large numbers of records at The National Archives that had been considered closed under the old arrangements were immediately opened as the new Act came into effect.

 Although many records are still closed for 30 years (or occasionally even longer) because they are ‘exempt’ under the Freedom of Information Act, the assumption that records will be closed for 30 years has been abolished by the Act, and government culture has had to adapt to a more open environment.  Today around 80% of Freedom of Information requests are granted, most of which are for information that is less than 30 years old.

 Is everything transferred to The National Archives by 30 years?

Most records are transferred from government departments to The National Archives by 30 years, but departments can specifically apply to keep things themselves for longer (in which case the Lord Chancellor needs to approve it).  There are two main reasons for retaining records at the departments; one is that they are still in active use (for example, plans or drawings of buildings, or personnel files) and the other that they remain very confidential.

 Is everything released to the public at 30 years?

Not everything does get released when transferred to The National Archives.  The Freedom of Information Act has reduced the number of records that can stay closed, but a very small proportion of material remains closed for a defined period.  Examples include murder files, which remain closed until the children of the victim are 100 years old, in order to protect them from exposure to distressing personal information.  Other records which remain closed relate to current defence or security, foreign relations etc..

 There is a check in place to ensure that this is applied appropriately.  The Lord Chancellor has an Advisory Council, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, which meets four times a year.  Any records to be transferred to The National Archives that the transferring department wants to keep closed beyond 30 years come to the Council for consideration. The Council does regularly challenge cases, in which case the department needs to provide more evidence and justification, or change their decision.

 Does secret intelligence material get released at 30 years?

The Security and Intelligence Services are exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and The National Archives does not routinely take security-classified material that has a protective marking above ‘Restricted’.  Much of this material does eventually come to The National Archives, either as the security difficulties fall away, or the files are no longer essential to current business.  In many cases it is released to the public after a period of 50 years or more.

 Contact the 30 year rule review

If you have any questions or comments about the review, please write to:

The Secretary
30 year Rule Review
PO Box 824
Richmond
TW9 4XF
Tel: +44 020 8392 5210/ +44 020 8392 5375
secretary@30yearrulereview.org.uk

 For further details, see the following link:

http://www.30yearrulereview.org.uk/default.htm

A code of conduct for all MPs will be given statutory backing and will clarify their role in relation to their constituents and Parliament. It will set out the options available to sanction failures to observe the required standards. The government will commission the Senior Salaries Review Body to review the system of financial support in the House of Lords so that it too can increase accountability, transparency and reduce cost. We will also legislate for new disciplinary sanctions for the misconduct of peers in the House of Lords. The Justice Secretary is currently in the process of liaising with all the political parties represented in the House of Commons on the proposed Parliamentary Standards Authority and the code of conduct.

Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, said: ‘The creation of a Parliamentary Standards Authority and an MPs’ code of conduct will continue the fundamental reforms we have already delivered to increase the accountability and transparency of Parliament. We are holding cross party talks on this matter, the first of which will take place today, and will we proceed urgently with legislation to restore the public’s trust in MPs, politics and Parliament.’

The government published a draft Constitutional Renewal Bill last year which includes measures aimed at surrendering prerogative powers to Parliament. This has been subject to wide consultation. We intend to introduce a final Bill to the House before the summer recess.

Notes to editors

For media enquiries, contact the Ministry of Justice News Desk on 020 3334 3536.

 Article originally made available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease100609a.htm

It is intended that the creation of a new Parliamentary Standards Authority to regulate the system of allowances and a code of conduct for all MPs will be put before Parliament in a short self-standing Bill before the summer recess. The Parliamentary Standards Authority will regulate and oversee members’ expense claims and oversee the new allowance system. It will also, as was proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, maintain the register of members’ interests and ensure appropriate sanctions are applied in cases of financial irregularity.

A code of conduct for all MPs will be given statutory backing and will clarify their role in relation to their constituents and Parliament. It will set out the options available to sanction failures to observe the required standards. The government will commission the Senior Salaries Review Body to review the system of financial support in the House of Lords so that it too can increase accountability, transparency and reduce cost. We will also legislate for new disciplinary sanctions for the misconduct of peers in the House of Lords. The Justice Secretary is currently in the process of liaising with all the political parties represented in the House of Commons on the proposed Parliamentary Standards Authority and the code of conduct.

 Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, said: ‘The creation of a Parliamentary Standards Authority and an MPs’ code of conduct will continue the fundamental reforms we have already delivered to increase the accountability and transparency of Parliament. We are holding cross party talks on this matter, the first of which will take place today, and will we proceed urgently with legislation to restore the public’s trust in MPs, politics and Parliament.’

The government published a draft Constitutional Renewal Bill last year which includes measures aimed at surrendering prerogative powers to Parliament. This has been subject to wide consultation. We intend to introduce a final Bill to the House before the summer recess.

 Notes to editors

For media enquiries, contact the Ministry of Justice News Desk on 020 3334 3536.

 Article originally made available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease100609a.htm

The new Scheme follows a 12-week prototype study in July 2007 that was hosted by Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court. That prototype study demonstrated that both custody and bail first hearings could take place in a single day with an average time of three and a half hours.

 Claimed benefits of the virtual court scheme include: 

• the potential for same-day sentencing of offenders who plead guilty.
• a reduction in delays caused by defendants failing to turn up to hearings and paperwork not being available.
• reducing prisoner movements, saving money on transport costs.

  It is suggested that the Virtual Courts Scheme has the potential to deliver savings of over £10million a year.

 Justice Secretary Jack Straw praised the first virtual court pilot for delivering justice faster and more efficiently, when he visited Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court on 27 May. Mr Straw said: 

 ‘As I have seen first hand today, virtual courts have the potential to transform how the justice system deals with crimes.  They are vital in the Government’s drive to deliver swift justice - resolving cases faster, freeing up police time and improving the service given to victims, witnesses and defendants.  Although at an early stage, this pilot helps the courts, police, prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judiciary work better together to deliver quicker and more effective justice without any loss of quality.  The faster we get justice done, the more we improve public confidence in the criminal justice system as whole.’

 The Solicitor General, Vera Baird QC, said: 

‘By continuing to examine the virtual courts concept we can ensure that its potential is fully realised but that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure it is used for the right kinds of cases. It can work for both complainants and defendants, while the public can continue to see justice being done.’ 

Lord Justice Leveson, the Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales said:

‘The courts offer a public and open system of justice, but it is also important that they provide for the swift resolution of cases. The judiciary are therefore keen to look at new and innovative methods of increasing the efficiency of the courts, whilst preserving what is important about the system of justice that they provide. Using technology such as this to reduce delay must therefore be worthy of further investigation. I welcome this pilot and shall follow its progress with interest.’

Andrew Morley, chief executive of the London Criminal Justice Board, which is coordinating the London pilot, said: 

‘The London Criminal Justice Board is committed to testing new ways of improving the public’s experience of the criminal justice system by improving the timeliness and efficiency of the process. We have shown previously through a successful prototype that the technology makes it possible for the court to deal with first appearances over a video link from the police station, and are confident that the pilot will demonstrate significant benefits in terms of efficiency, victim satisfaction and confidence.’

Published: 27/05/2009

Article originally made available at: http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ne12088

In a special award to recognize the fifteenth anniversary of the competition, an Anniversary Speaker’s Prize was awarded to Vanda Yakir of the University of Zagreb.

Both speakers will have the opportunity to enjoy a short stage at the Court of Justice to the European Communities in Luxembourg and the winning team from Warsaw will visit the University of Cambridge at the start of the next academic year