1998年极品也显著影响大法官办公室;宪法安排另一个职位的英语。像上议院大法官是立法机关和司法机关的一部分,但是他也坐落在内阁,他也是国家的第三部门的一部分,执行。大法官的角色可能是比上议院的宪法问题,他通常是政府的主要发言人在参议院(上议院)。他将是一个成员,因此,政府成立的政党,必然是党派。然而,他也是司法的头。他有权坐在法官如果他所以的愿望,尽管它已经表明,在实践中,这是一个罕见的工作负载现代大法官(主Mishcon形容大法官“不必穿太多的帽子”(vi))。Munro估计,从1979年到1997年,这两个主财政大臣设法裁决平均每年只有四个上诉。(七)尽管如此,不过,现在看来,大法官坐在法官,尤其是对手方是政府,是一个违反第六条ECHR的最高领导人。HRA 1998,因此,从根本上影响大法官的宪法地位的一个方面,即使在实践中这是一个方面,它并不经常使用。这种效应的表现英国宪法安排发生在2003年6月,政府宣布废除大法官的办公室。费尔康表示表示,“废除大法官办公室将执行之间的关系,司法和立法机构在一个现代的基础上,并澄清司法的独立性。“八世的McGonnell v联合王国(1998)(上图),这本身出现了《盗梦空间》的1998年极品,建议“大法官上诉委员会的存在,可能引起一个挑战在第六条ECHR;一个公平的听证会的权利由一个独立和公正的法庭。“(ix)我们可以看到,那么,如何开发案例法的HRA的批评增加了现有宪法大法官的位置。
The HRA 1998 also impacted significantly on the office of Lord Chancellor; another position unique to the English constitutional arrangement. Like the Law Lords, the Lord Chancellor is part of both the legislature and the judiciary, but as he also sits in Cabinet, he is also part of the third branch of the state, the executive. The Lord Chancellor’s role is potentially more constitutionally problematic than the Law Lords’, as he will usually be the Government’s main spokesman in the Upper Chamber (the House of Lords). He will be a member, therefore, of the political party from which the Government is formed, and is necessarily partisan. He is also, however, the head of the judiciary. He is entitled to sit as a judge if he so wishes, although it has been suggested that in practice, this is a rare occurrence given the work load of a modern Lord Chancellor (Lord Mishcon described the Lord Chancellor as “having to wear too many hats”[vi]). Munro estimates that between 1979 and 1997, the two Lord Chancellors managed to adjudicate in an average of only about four appeals per year.[vii] Despite this, however, it would seem that the Lord Chancellor sitting as a judge, particularly where the counterparty is the Government, is a contravention of Article 6 of the ECHR. The HRA 1998 has, therefore, fundamentally affected an aspect of the constitutional position of the Lord Chancellor, even if in practice it was an aspect that was not often used.The manifestation of this effect on the constitutional arrangement of England occurred in June 2003 when the Government announced that it was to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor. Lord Falconer stated that the “abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor will put the relationship between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature on a modern footing, and clarify the independence of the judiciary.”[viii] In the light of McGonnell v United Kingdom (1998) (referred to above), which itself arose from the inception of the HRA 1998, it was suggested that “the Lord Chancellor’s presence on an appeal committee might give rise to a challenge under Article 6 of the ECHR; the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”[ix] We can see here, then, how the case law that developed in the light of the HRA added weight to the criticism of the existing constitutional position of the Lord Chancellor.