Dame Siobhan Keegan on legacy, bringing the legal system into the digital age and wearing a wig

The first female chief justice in Northern Ireland says she wants to get to the stage when being a woman and the top judge here is no longer "remarkable".

Dame Siobhan Keegan who presided over and delivered the verdicts in the inquests into the Ballymurphy massacre said she's worried that legacy will continue to "infect" our society for years to come and that we all need to be "receptive" to new ways of dealing with the past including a truth recovery body or information retrieval scheme.

Dame Keegan also says she does not accept crimes against women are not taken seriously by the judiciary or that legal aid is exploited by barristers for financial gain.  

And she revealed her quest to take the legal system into the digital age - and go 'paper-light' rather than paperless.

Q. How important is it for young girls and women to see you as a woman in this role of chief justice?

A. Law has traditionally been male dominated. Interestingly, the majority of students coming into practice law are female, so they should be able to aspire to high office. Be that becoming King's counsel, becoming a partner in a solicitor's firm, becoming a judge, becoming chief justice. So I do think it's important.

But I also do look forward to the day where it's not remarkable that there is a woman in the most senior position and I think that is going to take a little bit of time.

Q. Who were the female and male mentors and role models in your life?

A. I always go back to my family structure in relation to that. The people who were truly role models to me were the women around me who wouldn't for a moment of thought they were role models, but they gave me strength and confidence and then I think a lot of senior practicing barristers who were men and some women were encouraging.

I'm not sure I had a huge amount of obvious role models in the senior positions when I started in law but that changed when women were appointed to the county court.

Judge Corinne Philpott in 1998 was very important and more women in my time became QCs and then I became a QC. So that was good and I saw senior women get into positions in law in England and Wales which was inspiring so you do need to be able to see that and I realise young girls looking in who aspire to be lawyers do take some comfort that I managed to get through and get to the most senior position.

Q. Do you think that you carry out your job differently by virtue of being a woman?

A. I have wondered about that. I don't think that it changes how you do your job. As a lawyer I think you're a good lawyer whether you're a man or a woman, but I think as a person, you bring something of yourself to any job you do. I think the job itself is related to your person and your legal expertise.

Q. You have a vast amount of experience in a wide range of law, but it was your painstaking work in the Ballymurphy inquests which brought you to public prominence. What can we learn as a society and how best can the collective public interest be served in dealing with our past which has proved a major stumbling block?

A. Those inquests you mention, it was a major enterprise which was only achievable through the cooperation of all the people involved, the lawyers, the people, the court staff so it was quite a challenge to get it completed.

The legacy issue, I can't really comment on how it's going to go forward, given that there are government proposals at the moment. In relation to this. But I think it's fair to say that the issue has been before us for a long time. in our jurisdiction for fifty years or more now in different forms and what I think that shows is that it's improtant but also we need to think about it in a broader way because of how many people were affected during the Troubles. 

We need to think about how we deal with everyone's issues. I think it would be difficult as a society if we are still grappling with this in another 50 years and that's not just for law that's for everyone so the law has a part to play and the courts of deal with the cases that are referred to the courts or are brought by people who want some resolution.

But I just think there are wider questions that need to be answered that are beyond my remit. And I worry that this issue infects our society for very many years to come if we don't get it right.

We need to think about reconciliation, define that properly, think about what society wants and whether society is ready for more steps to be taken in that area.

Q. Something like a Truth Recovery Body an information retrieval scheme is that, in your opinion, as a judge, something that we should be looking at in order to move forward?

A. Yeah, I think those things have been referred to before in the political arena. I'm not sure it's quite my role to say where they fit in. I deal with the legal system, but certainly they were seen to be a very important complement and part of various different discussions in years past because of the, as I say, very many people affected by the Troubles, not just the people who come to our courts, which are a small cohort, but there are very many families from both sides of the community who have been affected and who still have issues that they would like dealt with in some way or other.

So, I mean, I think we have to all be receptive to that as people who live here to make it a better place.

Q. Recently, you were was forced to intervene to speak to a judge following controversial comments he made about a convicted sex offender and you have spoken to the judge in question and offered guidance and training to all the judiciary - why did you feel the need to intervene?

A. Because it's such an important issue. We have undertaken a tremendous amount of work to make sure that complainants feel comfortable within the criminal justice system and also that accused have a fair trial.

These cases, unfortunately, are very prevalent in our courts and I am certainly committed to ongoing training. If issues are raised with me and that might impact upon the confidence of those within the criminal justice system. But I think I may say there is a collective responsibility. There's a responsibility on judges who are experienced, conscientious and getting through a lot due to the covid backlog and we constantly deal with these issues.

It's not a new thing - training - and I'm committed to it. There's a responsibility on lawyers to be trained as well. Press are a part of this and I'm very keen on open justice and responsible reporting which does by and large occur so it's part of a bigger picture that we continue to maintain the high standards that we have. People should come away from a case feeling comfortable and so I'm receptive to any issues raised with me.

Q. Do you think crimes against women are not taken or perceived to be taken seriously by some not all but by some judges? And what can you do in your role to redress that imbalance - to help with public perception and with the confidence of victims and survivors to come forward?

A. I don't really accept crimes against women aren't dealt with seriously. I think if you look at some of the recent Court of Appeal cases which are the guide cases you will see a reiteration of how seriously the courts take domestic type offences, there are aggravating features which are very important that sentencing should reflect the crimes. Sentencing is an exercise in judicial discretion. Judicial office holders are independent and they have to balance in every case the particular facts of the case.

I - certainly through the cases I deal with - in the Court of Appeal have reiterated how domestic abuse cases with certain features should be sentenced that does not detract from the fact that it is not a one size fits all and independent judges have to look at each case on their own facts but I don't accept that there's an issue with how the judiciary are dealing with these cases by and large. We can always improve to make sure confidence is maintained but I think the sentences speak for themselves.

Q. But there was a public backlash around what was described as an unduly lenient sentence for a sex trafficker. The PPS did consider appealing it but that didn't happen?

A. If judges get it wrong, which may happen, cases can be appealed or, as you rightly point out, referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. I can't say anything about that particular case. It wasn't referred to the Court of Appeal. And often the Court of Appeal can, if it looks at cases referred daily with guidance. But there are statutory limits to our offences that are set in legislation. So some matters require legislative change.

Q. Other legislative change has finally come into force to protect women here. Laws to ban coercive control and stalking have this year been enacted, considerably far behind other parts of the UK - did that delay hinder the judiciary here?

A. If there's a specific offence it's easier to frame a case and a sentence. I think that has assisted in certain areas. Coercive control is now understood as a specific offence but what I would say is that prior to legislative change I think the judiciary were picking up aggravating cases in some domestic cases such as non fatal strangulation or choking. But having it in law frames a case, centres a case.

Our understanding of domestic violence has obviously changed, and coercive control is now a part of the armoury that those charging on offences have. So I think that has assisted in terms of the legal process.

Q. And I suppose a bit like legacy, it's a wider conversation that has to be had on a wider societal level about what's acceptable and what's not? 

A. Well, I think that's right. And law has to adapt to social circumstances, and does and that happens as a process of consultation. There also needs to be educative programmes within domestic settings, if you think about it. It's back to basics how you behave as a young adult and as you grow and what the right boundaries. Education for young people but also for those who fall foul of the law, who behave inappropriately in a domestic setting.

Q. Your three aims in your key note address this year were: tackling unavoidable delay; problem solving justice; and modernising the system. They are big asks in a system which is archaic and antiquated - why is there such a delay and why is it so costly to access justice?

A. Delay is a perennial issue that arises but I am committed to trying to deal with it and we have made some progress. What I would say at the outset is that it has been complicated by the covid delay but it was there before covid. I'm involved with the criminal justice board and we have looked at this.

Speeding up justice is part of the justice programme. From my own point of view, it's involved us all working together - prosecutors, lawyers court staff. We've mapped the reasons, asked the PPS 'what are the investigative bumps in the road' and there are some. Cases are more complicated now with a lot more discovery involved and you've got to get them right. There's no point rushing the case and getting the wrong result.

Q. Given the political instability in the Executive level and at Westminster and within spending cuts looking likely, how are you going to achieve those and how are ordinary people going to access justice?

A. I'm really worried about that, Sarah. I mentioned in my opening of term speech the fiscal council's report published in January of this year, and it referred to justice as the big loser. The justice budget has not increased. It's decreased and yet the demands on justice have increased. So you can see where the tension is. 

Q. Would you accept that legal barristers are exploiting the system?

A. No, I don't really accept that at all. I think there are cases that come up that rightly the public should know about that are problematic.

But by and large, the professions that's the two sides of the profession understand their duty to use public funds wisely. And so that is also something that needs to be carefully monitored. As I think it is. And if people step out of line, that should be action should be taken.

Q. The legal system, like many industries, had to adapt to new ways of working during and post the pandemic. How well did it adapt?

A. I was surprised at how adaptable we were. Our traditional model is people are in court and have to be in court to hear cases. And we started using remote methods as a complement to that. And I think that's been good I think that saves cost and time because not everybody has to be physically in the court.

I think we thought more about how we can modernise the system now because we've been brought into that conversation. And I have issued a digitalisation and modernisation paper, which I hope will gain some traction, though it's difficult because it's a new way of doing things.

Q. Do you envisage a time when lawyers go paperless, for example - any time soon?

A. Well, I think we should be thinking about paper light, so I'm not sure myself we can entirely get rid of paper, but I think we can greatly reduce the paperwork that we use, and we're starting to do that.

Q. And one from my eight year old daughter - do you wear a wig and why?

A. I do wear a wig. What a great question. Can I say it's interesting because in years gone by, there was a move to take away wigs for judges, and we don't wear wigs in some civil cases, but we wear wigs in criminal cases. And I wear wigs on important days. And I wondered what people felt about judges wearing wigs.

Was it a bit out of date? It was embedded in law as a morning practice in years of old as part of court dress. So I suppose you could take it away. But actually, it's the people who come to these courts who feel that it is a very important part of our dress. And the children who came when I was a family judge to the courts often said: could you make sure that the judge wears a wig? So yes I do wear my wig. 

Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know.