In 1962,
Lord Evershed resigned as
Master of the Rolls, and Denning was appointed to replace him on 19 April 1962 with a salary of £9,000. Although Denning himself described it as "a step down" he was pleased with his appointment, as he had much preferred his time with the Court of Appeal than the House of Lords. Court of Appeal judges sit in threes, and the Lords in fives (or more), so it was suggested that to get his way in the Court of Appeal Denning only had to persuade one other judge whereas in the House of Lords it was at least two. The other "benefit" of the Court of Appeal is that it hears more cases than the House of Lords, and so has a greater effect on the law. During his twenty years as Master of the Rolls, Denning could choose both which cases he heard, and the judges with whom he sat. Therefore, on most issues, he effectively had the last word; comparatively few cases went on to the House of Lords, which was at that time Britain's highest court of law. As Master of the Rolls he selected cases he felt to be particularly important to hear and, rather than having an American system (where judges had a rota for taking cases), assigned cases to those judges who had expertise in that particular area of law. In 1963, he chaired a committee investigating ways to reduce the archive of legal documents kept by the
Public Record Office; by that point the files for civil cases of the High Court alone occupied four miles of shelving. The final report was presented to the Lord Chancellor on 16 May 1966, with the conclusion being that "if our proposals are implemented the Public Record Office alone will be relieved of two hundred tons of records (occupying 15,000 feet of shelving)". The Lord Chancellor took Denning's report to heart, and had the changes he recommended implemented immediately.
Contract law Denning gave the leading judgment in
D & C Builders Ltd v Rees [1965] 2 QB 617 in 1965. D & C Builders Ltd (the respondent) had been hired by Rees (the appellant) to do some construction work at his shop, where he sold building materials. The respondent finished the work and repeatedly phoned the appellant to request the money they were owed. After three phone calls spread out over several months the appellant's wife spoke to the respondents; she said there were several problems with the work that they had done, and she would only pay £300 of the £482 owed. The fact that D & C Builders were effectively forced into accepting the lesser amount meant that the payment was not valid.
Tort law Denning gave the leading judgment in
Letang v Cooper [1964] 2 All ER 929 in 1964. Mrs Letang, on holiday in Cornwall, decided to lie down and rest in grass outside a hotel. Cooper drove into the hotel car park and, not seeing Letang, ran over her legs. In
Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v. Martin & Co. Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 in 1973 he delivered a leading judgment on the subject of the recovery of
pure economic loss in
negligence. Spartan Steel were a company that manufactured stainless steel in Birmingham, and their factory was powered by electricity. Less than a mile away from the factory, Martin & Co were doing maintenance work on a road when they accidentally unearthed and damaged the power cable providing the factory with electricity. and secondly because the main public policy ground for their decision (that allowing claims of pure economic loss would lead to countless claims) has never been backed up by evidence. The police did not initially investigate; no crime had been committed, and the morals of ministers were not their concern. Although the relationship lasted only a few weeks it became public knowledge in 1962. Keeler attempted to publish her memoirs in the
Sunday Pictorial in January 1963 but Profumo, still insisting that he had done nothing wrong, forced them to back down with threats of legal action should the story be published. Profumo made a statement in the
House of Commons on 22 March, saying that "there was no impropriety whatsoever in my acquaintanceship with Miss Keeler". On 4 June 1963, he contacted the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister's private secretary and informed them that he had indeed been having an affair with Keeler; therefore, he sent a letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, which was accepted. On 21 June 1963,
Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister at the time, asked Denning to lead an enquiry into the "circumstances leading to the resignation of the former Secretary of State for War, Mr J. D. Profumo". He started work on 24 June and began speaking to witnesses a day later. This period of the inquiry took 49 days and involved his speaking to 160 people. He concluded that the primary responsibility for the scandal was with Profumo, for associating with Keeler and for lying to his colleagues, with the greatest error being his false statement in the House of Commons. He also said that the situation had been looked at in the wrong way by police, members of parliament and the security services; rather than asking if Profumo had committed adultery they should have asked if his conduct had led ordinary people to believe he committed adultery. His analogy was with divorce law; a man does not need to have committed adultery for his wife to have grounds to divorce him, but rather she simply has to believe that he has committed adultery. This is because such a belief would destroy the trust and confidence within the relationship. This brought criticism from several government ministers including
Sir John Hobson, the
Attorney General for England and Wales, saying that it would mean condemning a man on the basis of suspicion rather than evidence. Denning's final report was 70,000 words long and was completed in the summer of 1963. He signed it on 16 September and it was published ten days later. It was a best-seller; 105,000 copies were sold, 4,000 in the first hour, with people queuing outside
Her Majesty's Stationery Office to buy copies. The full report was published in
The Daily Telegraph as a supplement and was described as "the raciest and most readable
Blue Book ever published". a claim Denning rejected; he said that "while the public interest demands that the facts should be ascertained as completely as possible there is a higher interest to be considered, namely the interest of justice to the individual which overrides all others".
Children's rights In 1969, Denning heard the case of
Hewer v Bryant which related to the rights of those under 18 to act on their own behalf. In this case, Denning rejected the concept of absolute parental control over someone under 18, and established it as a 'dwindling right'. This judgment was subsequently cited in the landmark case of
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority which remains the definitive case on children's rights, with leading judge for that case,
Lord Fraser saying that he agreed "with every word" of Denning's ruling.
Admiralty court Denning sat as an
Admiralty court judge. In fact he was one of the leading justiciars in Admiralty court of the late 20th century. For example, he decided the Hansa Nord case
Cehave v Bremer in 1976; this case demonstrated the continued pre-eminence of London as the legal centre of the high seas even although the sun was setting on the
British Empire.
National security In 1977, Denning upheld the deportation of
Mark Hosenball, a journalist who had worked on a story which referred to the existence of
GCHQ, which was considered to be a state secret. In the ruling, he argued that the government's decisions in these cases were beyond legal review, writing:
Illness and controversy In 1979, he began to experience hip and leg problems; one of his legs had shortened an inch and a half and he had to learn to walk again. In the
Union of Post Office Workers's anti-apartheid boycott of postal services to and from South Africa,
The Freedom Association sought an injunction to prevent the
boycott. Denning granted a temporary injunction, and years later wrote of "bad workers" (who joined the boycott) and "good workers" (who worked normally). In 1980, during an appeal by the
Birmingham Six (who were later acquitted), Denning judged that the men should be stopped from challenging legal decisions. He listed several reasons for not allowing their appeal: In 1982, he published
What Next in the Law; in it, he seemed to suggest that "British citizens were no longer all qualified to serve on juries", that some members of the black community were unsuitable to serve on juries and that immigrant groups may have had different moral standards to native Englishmen. The English are no longer a homogeneous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and
graft are accepted as an integral part of life and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out… They will never accept the word of a policeman against one of their own.In the book, he claimed that, in a trial over the
St Pauls riot in Bristol, which resulted in an acquittal, the jury split down racial lines. Two jurors on the case threatened to sue him and the
Society of Black Lawyers wrote to the Lord Chancellor to request that Denning "politely and firmly" be made to retire. The book was withdrawn and re-published with the passages removed. On 5 July,
George Thomas held a dinner in Denning's honour at the
Speaker's House. Attending were
Margaret Thatcher,
Robert Runcie,
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone,
Geoffrey Howe,
Lord Lane,
Willie Whitelaw,
Michael Havers, and
Christopher Leaver. On 30 July 1982, his last day in court, Denning prepared four judgments and, dressed in his official robes and in the company of the Lord Chief Justice, delivered his farewell speech to over 300 lawyers crowded into the court. He delivered his last judgment on 29 September in
George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803 and, characteristically, dissented, though the House of Lords would later unanimously uphold his dissent. ==Retirement and death==