Britain’s most senior judge has strongly opposed any move towards American-style selection of judges involving Parliament.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers made clear yesterday that he is completely against any role for the executive in appointing judges, as floated in the Prime Minister’s recent Green Paper on governance.

He expressed concern about the “growing tendency” to challenge the mandate of judges during an address to the Commonwealth Law Conference in Kenya.

“Some say that our decisions are not legitimate, because we have not been elected,” he said.

“They point to the United States, where some judges are elected and where, at the highest level in the Federal system, candidates are subjected to confirmation hearings.”

The Government’s recent Green Paper indicated that it was “willing to look at the future of its role in judicial appointments,” he added.

The Green Paper suggested looking at “going further than the present arrangement, including, conceivably, a role for Parliament itself, after consultation with the judiciary, Parliament and the public if it is felt that there is a need”.

The Lord Chief Justice said: “I am only aware of one Commonwealth country where Parliament is involved in judicial appointments and that is Mozambique.

“I, for one, can see no need for such an innovation in the United Kingdom.”

But he accepted the case for a limited power of veto - by a minister - over the most senior appointments.

“The senior judiciary have, to some extent, to work in partnership with government. It would, I think, be unfortunate if a Chief Justice were appointed in whose integrity and abilities the Government had no confidence.”

And he endorsed a recent proposal from the House of Lords’ Constitutional Committee that judges should appear before select committees as a way of expressing their views on general concerns.

However, such appearances should be “relatively rare”, he said, adding: “I do not believe it would be desirable judges to appear to be at the beck and call fo Parliament.”

Lord Phillips also called for judges to be paid properly, adding that by that he meant “well paid” - as this helped recruitment and served as a protection against corruption.

In most Commonwealth jurisdictions, judges tended to be recruited from among practising lawyers who tended “to earn quite a lot”. If the disparity became too great, recruiting able lawyers became difficult, he said.

He added: “The other reason for paying judges well is that a good salary makes it easier to resist corruption.

“It is an unfortunate fact that in some of the newer democracies there is a long tradition of litigants, and indeed others, expecting to pay for what should be provided free.”

Lord Phillips noted that he was fortunate in coming from a jurisdiction where it was “inconceivable” that a litigant should even attempt to bribe a judge.

“I have told this to visiting judges from some of the new central and Eastern European democracies and it was quite obvious that they did not believe me.”

Lord Phillips also urged a swift solution to the ongoing constitutional dispute over the creation of the Ministry of Justice, over which judges were not consulted and which they fear puts the budget for the courts and legal aid at risk of being eroded by demands of the prisons service.

The new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, has asked for more time to consider the judges’ concerns about the need to protect or ring-fence the courts’ budget.

“This is a reasonable request, but we have emphasised the urgency of getting a resolution of the situation.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure