Second Part (starts rather dark)

0:09:07 The ordinary drill was, and still is, that you spent a year with an active practitioner whose practise you shadowed; you go with him or her to court and read all their papers and have complete access to all their conferences; in those days you paid a fee of 100 guineas; I think that now a pupil is not allowed to do any work of their own but in those days you could; I began with a very engaging character called Owen Stable in January 1959; the head of the Chambers was Leslie Scarman, and a very good chambers to be in; actually called Mr Scarman's Chambers and he became a judge about a year later; at Easter he gave a party Scarman's wife told him I should join the chambers; I did a certain amount of work during the year for Owen Stable on civil cases; during my pupillage we visited courts at every level in the land; during the period of qualifying for the Bar I spent three months marshalling for a judge; he was travelling the North-Eastern Circuit that winter and we began in Newcastle in January and went on to Durham, York, Leeds, Sheffield where we finished at Easter; the marshal lives the life of the judge, stays with him in the judge's lodgings, is present at all the meals, sits with him on the bench, and discusses the case with him; saw criminal and civil cases being tried; I found it hugely instructive and educative because you could form judgements on whether a person was doing well, and more significantly, you got the judge's reactions to everything; the judge I was with appeared a very austere teetotal Baptist with a rather forbidding appearance; actually he was the most compassionate, delightful and generous man; I found it reassuring at the outset of one's career to find a human being to whom one could relate perfectly easily; his name was Donald Finnimore; he was a very good Queen's Bench judge, if a bit lazy; judges have gone on circuit since the time of Henry; the system has survived partly because there was a very strong feeling that if you had stationed a high court judge in Durham or Newcastle, he or she would not have the same chances of promotion as judges who were sitting in London; I once proposed that you should station high court judges round the country but this was very unpopular

8:03:20 Judges do have a sense of belonging to a very small elite; we have a tiny judiciary compared with most; there are about a thousand paid judges in this country compared with thirty-five thousand in the United States; think that because it is a small, carefully selected number, contributes to the fact that its record of behaviour is extraordinary; there has been a power since the Act of Settlement of 1701 to dismiss a judge by both Houses of Parliament; this has never happened to an English judge though it did happen in relation to an Irish one; means there is no history of corruption or anything like it; the small size of the judiciary is possible because of the lay magistracy, a hugely important part of the judicial system; one of the functions of a Lord Chief Justice is to go round and address magistrates; I saw it important to maintain the self-belief of the magistrates and to make them feel appreciated

11:18:03 I did marshalling before pupillage, then I became a Member of Chambers and did whatever work came along; in my chambers in those days we had a very wise and un-mercenary clerk who was the presiding providence in chambers and guided everybody's career; he was a great judge of form though he could be a severe critic; remember him coming out of court having watched me and asking me whose side I thought I was on; when the time came he said it was a good idea to apply for silk, and one followed his advice; he always made decisions in one's own interest rather than his own; he did have an interest as he was entitled to 10% of whatever you earned; to apply for silk in those days meant that you put in an application to the Lord Chancellor to indicate you wanted to become a Queen's Counsel; it has become hugely more complex since, but then you had to get a couple of judges to support you; I was thirty-eight when I applied, which was pretty young; Melford Stevenson, previous Head of Chambers,  and another judge gave their support; Hubert Parker, Lord Chief Justice, said he never supported anyone but would remember the name; as a Q.C. you didn't settle pleadings any more but had a junior to do it; as it meant you had to go into court with a junior, you were only instructed in cases which were sufficiently important to pay; still mainly engaged in civil cases; in my chambers we used to do criminal work at the beginning but it was poorly paid, and the practice was to give it up as soon as you could, usually after the first five years

16:57:00 I was a silk for eight years; I acted for the Government quite a lot; I had been standing counsel to a department as a junior which meant that you remained in private practice but did some government work; any litigation that the department was engaged in, they instructed you; I did have quite a close link with the Department of Employment; in the early 1970's with the Industrial Relations Act, the turmoil associated made it quite a lively area; got involved in a lot of high profile work which led to Government connection; I also spent a year as a silk investigating how oil got to Rhodesia during the United Nations sanctions; David Owen, when Foreign Secretary, was prevailed on later to establish an enquiry to ascertain how the oil had got there; I and a chartered accountant were given this task; there were five companies potentially involved, two of which were American - Mobil and Exxon, one French - CFP, two British - BP and Shell; the Americans and French refused to be investigated so it ended up with the two British companies; became clear there was no collusion between them in the inquiry

20:44:11 The next stage was to become a Queen's Bench Judge; nowadays you apply, but in those days there was the system of the tap on the shoulder by the Lord Chancellor who invited you to become a judge; there were always some who refused but most said yes; meant that you spent part of the time sitting in London; in my case it was usually in the Commercial Court, having latterly done a lot of commercial work in shipping; would also spend some time travelling round the circuits doing quite a lot of criminal work; I enjoyed this period; the Commercial Court was a small body of about six judges with a very strong esprit de corps, and a very successful court; it is quite a dollar earner for the country as over half the cases involve no British company; these people are choosing to litigate in this country to the considerable benefit to the profession; there is no jury system in that court but there was on circuit; almost every judge is a strong proponent of the jury system; the public have enormous confidence in juries, and would much rather be tried by their fellow citizens than by a single judge; it is not my experience that juries come up with absurd verdicts; I don't recall cases where they convicted people whom one thought should have been acquitted; the tendency is to slightly lean in favour of the accused, but this would depend on the crime; I did make myself very unpopular at one stage over either way cases, where the defendant has the choice of being tried in a magistrate's court or by a jury trial, at enormous expense; I proposed that this decision should be taken by magistrates, subject to appeal, but this has not happened; I have never conducted a long fraud trial; I have been impressed by the argument of some judges who have that the sheer physical difficulty of managing such a trial makes the whole thing inappropriate; you get perhaps dozens of bundles of files and it is a problem of how physically you accommodate these in front of a jury; there is another school of thought that in the end the question is a simple one of honesty or dishonesty, and that is probably true; I have some sympathy that fraud trials cannot be very well managed in front of juries, but I wouldn't want to extend that very far; I would be very resistant to such things as trying terrorists without a jury

28:55:10 I went to the Court of Appeal after six years on the Queen's Bench and I spent six years as Lord Justice; during this period I spent another year investigating the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) which crashed rather spectacularly, and its supervision by the Bank of England; on that occasion I was on my own with no co-investigator; this was in 1991-2 before I became Master of the Rolls; I was investigating BCCI as a tribunal, this was not a judicial proceeding; I was calling all the witnesses and questioning them, and it was all in private; like a lot of advocates of my generation, I loved to appear in front of Tom Denning because he was very un-pompous and willing to listen; he did not reject arguments because they were unusual or contrary to authority; there were other figures like Charles Bowen who died young at the end of the nineteenth century, who was not only a very good judge but a great humorist; Dicey's 'Law of the Constitution' is important and easy to read; he coined the expression 'the rule of law'; I have just written a book on the subject; I gave the Sir David William's Lecture in Cambridge on 'The Rule of Law' as I didn't think people thought about what was meant by it; this has been expanded for publication by Penguin Books though it has yet to come out; suggest that the rule of law requires compliance with obligations binding on the State in international law as well as national; obligations in the making of war and the United Nations Charter are an aspect of the rule of law; I kept off the subject of the Iraq War in the lecture as I was a serving judge at the time; I have given a lecture since which is actually a chapter in the book and I certainly made the suggestion that international law was broken; I think the United Nations Charter is clear in that you can go to war in self-defence or if authorized by a resolution of the Security Council; there is a third, rather disputatious possibility, that you can go to war to prevent a major humanitarian catastrophe; nobody has plausibly suggested that there was any question of self-defence in March 2003 or that it was necessary to prevent a major humanitarian catastrophe; the only question is whether is was authorized by the Security Council; my view is that it was not; the argument of threat was not there as Saddam Hussein was not threatening to use weapons at the time, and had not used weapons of mass destruction against his own population since 1991; in March 2003 there were United Nations weapons inspectors crawling all over Iraq, who hadn't found anything and were to complete their investigations within months; certainly the Attorney General in his advice did not suggest self-defence; Peter Goldsmith was a member of my old Chambers so was not very pleased by what I have said; his argument was that there was authorization in Resolution 1441; in his first advice he canvassed this authority being revived by Resolution 1441 but said that the matter had to go back to the Security Council to be considered; what Resolution 1441 said was that Saddam Hussein should have one final opportunity to comply, but the question was who was to judge whether he had availed himself of that opportunity; the answer in my view could only be the Security Council; it was not open for the United States or Britain to say that they didn't think he had; Peter never would accept that there was any difference between these two advices, but they don't lie happily together in my opinion; a lawyer is not usually in the position to say what the facts are so will often say to a client that if these are the facts then as a matter of law it follows; that is what Peter was trying to do with the Prime Minister; if he was satisfied that there had been a material breach, then it was legitimate to go to war; he left it to Blair to say whether there was a material breach or not; we may get to know this when there is an enquiry, if there is; I am not at all sure to what extent Tony Blair applied his mind to this; Peter Goldsmith was emphatic in his advice that regime change was not a legitimate object of the invasion; I myself find it very hard indeed to think that Tony Blair did not appreciate that regime change was what the Americans wanted because they never made any bones about it; I think it may be that any enquiry would have to go into camera for some bits because there may well be very sensitive intelligence and operational information that would be damaging; I think it may depend on which Government is in power

45:13:14 A few years ago the Information Commissioner talked about sleepwalking into a surveillance society; I don't think that is an exaggeration, indeed almost every day that passes produces some new means of tracking what we all do; we have more CCTV cameras than any country in the world and much the biggest DNA database; clearly it would be absurd to say that no information should be held about anybody, but we should be very jealous of allowing intrusions into our privacy unless they were absolutely justified; I think that arguments about administrative efficiency relating to databases is rather unpersuasive, as the main feature seems to be that everybody loses them; on terrorist threat - I think we tend to lose a sense of proportion on these occasions; in our lifetime we have faced much more serious threats than Al Qaeda is actually likely to impose and we did not resort to measures of this draconian nature; I consider the prohibition of torture to be an absolute with no permissible exceptions allowed; as a result of this particular appeal I learnt that historically, both in this country and continental Europe, there was trial by ordeal; this was declared by the Lateran Council of 1215 to be unacceptable; the continental countries reverted to the old Canon Law model that if you wanted to convict somebody of a crime you needed two witnesses; the problem was there very often were not two witnesses and then a confession would do; so they resorted to torture in order to get a confession; in this country we reacted the other way and the Common Law courts from certainly the fourteenth century simply said that it was not acceptable and would not look at evidence that had been produced by torture; they gave three reasons, the cruelty of the practise involved, the unreliability of much of the evidence, and that it defiled any court that received such evidence; there was torture inflicted by the Prerogative courts - Star Chamber and High Commission pursuant to royal warrant, so people like Guy Fawkes were tortured; regarded by Common Law lawyers as an unacceptable residue of royal power; just about the first thing that the Long Parliament did in 1641 was to abolish those courts and with it the power to torture in England and Wales; almost the first act of the united parliament after the Act of Union of 1707 was to abolish torture in Scotland; the suggestion that we now alter that position is turning the clock back 350 years and seems totally unacceptable; the ticking bomb situation has never occurred; what we did concede in our case is that if, contrary to law and the convention, torture is inflicted on somebody, and as a result of that torture the police learn that there is a ticking bomb, then they are entitled to go and remove it; that still doesn't excuse the torturer who has committed a very serious crime; I am the Chairman of 'Reprieve' the body of which Clive Stafford-Smith is the Director, which has represented Binyam Mohammed and has been largely responsible for getting him out; I went to a breakfast meeting that was addressed by his extremely forceful black American lawyer, Colonel Bradley; Clive Stafford-Smith is an American lawyer but he is in the difficult position of knowing a certain amount of classified information that he is not permitted to divulge; he respects that, but he is certain that there was complicity on the part of the British authorities, not in the sense that they were inflicting torture or present at the time, but knew that torture was being inflicted and were supplying questions