Few of them are what one might call radical (perhaps Hoffman and until his recent retirement Steyn in the Lords, Laws in the CA) but I certainly don't think of them as staunch conservatives. The biggest tendency is probably "classical liberal". I really don;t believe many are Tory party members (the only judge -not High Court, at least not properly- whose political affiliations I know is a New Labour enthusiast). Of course the concept of law (or at least as understood in English law, I am deliberately avoiding matters north of the border, of which I know nothing) is I suggest inherently "conservative" in the sense of valuing coherence and consistency over radicalism.
Denning published a sequence of books towards the end of his career in the last of which he made extremely ill-judged remarks about black people and if I remember rightly (the run really was pulped and I have only ever seen one copy) black lawyers and their capabilities specifically. He apologised, and his apology was accepted (by the leader of the black lawyers association) but the damage was done, and though I don't believe he was guilty of hardline bigotry or express racism I do think what he said betrayed a certain racially patronising mindset and a failure to appreciate what might cause offence (those are clumsy terms but I hope you understand the distinction I'm making). It was taken so badly that he resigned in the furore -all other judges of his age were subject to automatic retirement, but he was exempt from those provisions because he was appointed to the High Court bench before they came in (he became a judge very young indeed).
He should also be remembered for his regrets that the Guildford 4 weren't hanged and for several comments, observations, and purple passages in his judgments which betray, to my mind, a rather Little Englander perspective.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Part 2.
Date: 2006-05-31 01:42 pm (UTC)Denning published a sequence of books towards the end of his career in the last of which he made extremely ill-judged remarks about black people and if I remember rightly (the run really was pulped and I have only ever seen one copy) black lawyers and their capabilities specifically. He apologised, and his apology was accepted (by the leader of the black lawyers association) but the damage was done, and though I don't believe he was guilty of hardline bigotry or express racism I do think what he said betrayed a certain racially patronising mindset and a failure to appreciate what might cause offence (those are clumsy terms but I hope you understand the distinction I'm making). It was taken so badly that he resigned in the furore -all other judges of his age were subject to automatic retirement, but he was exempt from those provisions because he was appointed to the High Court bench before they came in (he became a judge very young indeed).
He should also be remembered for his regrets that the Guildford 4 weren't hanged and for several comments, observations, and purple passages in his judgments which betray, to my mind, a rather Little Englander perspective.