The appointment of judges to the court of appeal and the House of Lords is a matter of debate and subject to criticism for years by academic experts, legal profession societies, the public and the media.
As the court of appeal and the House of Lords are the supreme courts in deciding the liberty of people, size of the debate becomes greater and people asking more and more about the way our supreme judges are appointed.
Why they should be mainly or totally male when it relates to the House of Lords? Why the selection is secret and there is not a public voting for selecting higher judges? Who represents the female community in these higher institutions? What about the blacks, the Asians and the other minority ethnic groups who live on these Isles for years? What about the solicitors or even barristers who are not graduated from Oxford or Cambridge? Those questions and many other questions.
The government, from its side, also reviews the system and starts new projects and researches in order to find some answers for these questions. The Commission for Judicial Appointments (CJA) Suggests many radical plans for this purpose.
The question remains either the new proposals make any change to the system, and if they do, are they make great changes towards good in UK's legal system?
This short essay will try to answer some of these questions.
English Legal System in Progress
In English legal system the three powers: executive, legislative and judicial, are separated from each other theoretically, but the position of the Lord Chancellor who has power over all the three parts, is a matter of debate and question.
The Lord Chancellor, according to the study of [Elliot& Quinn 2002, p.99] is:
The head of the whole judiciary…. currently Lord Irvine, who effectively appoints all the other judges…. He is usually a Cabinet Minister and speaker of the House of Lords.
According to the current System the Lord Chancellor's department appoints all the judges, but the conditions for judges of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords are so strict that it is impossible for anyone who is not white, male, middle or upper class, elderly and Oxbridge graduate to enter these courts.
This matter is highly controversial, and many people nowadays are asking for a reform in the system and may be to find an alternative for the position of Lord Chancellor and the system of appointing the higher judges.
The Prime Minister announced on 12 June 2003 the creation of a new Department of Constitutional Affairs, This will incorporate most of the responsibilities of the former Lord Chancellor's Department.
It can be argued that creating a Supreme Court solves the problem as it comes in the consultation paper of the Department for constitutional affairs.
In recent years there have been mounting calls for the creation of a new free standing Supreme Court separating the highest appeal court from the second house of Parliament and removing the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the legislature. On 12 June 2003 the Government announced its intention to do so.
This new court will be the highest court for the whole United Kingdom, as the previous Consultation paper by the Lord Falconer of Thornton argues:
The Government believes, however, that the time has come to establish a new court regulated by statute as a body separate from Parliament. The proposed new Court will be a United Kingdom body legally separate from the England and Wales Courts since it will also be the Supreme Court of both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Judges of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords: Discrimination or High Standards?
The House of Lords is the highest appeal hearing authority in England, its decisions are bound all over the other courts, and until 1966 it was even bound by its own decisions.
The House of Lords:
“Plays a far more significant role in Parliament than their minor and merely delaying powers suggest”. [Encyclopaedia Britannica (1997) p.478]
The court of appeal also is a higher court second to the HL; it contains the same procedure of the HL except of containing one-woman judge (now three- October 2003). The table below gives us a clear picture of the judges of these two Higher Courts in 1999:
| Courts | Total | Male | Female | White | Black | Asian | Other |
| Lords of Appeal in ordinary | 12 | 12 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Heads of Divisions (Excluding the LC) | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lords Justice of Appeal | 35 | 34 | 1 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
By regarding the long history of these two courts and their sensitive and historical role in the English society, one may argue that many of their restrictions are from the standard of qualification rather than the discrimination. As they ask for upper and middle classes, graduates of Oxbridge, and being a successful Barrister for years, this may support what they argue.
Fantastic article.
The lack of female representation in the higher echelons of the legal profession is ironic, in light of the number of companies successfully sued (by lawyers) for sexual inequality.
It will take at least another 20 years in the UK before the "jobs for the boys" reality disappears - or reduces to an acceptable level.
I have been involved in a civil law case for the past two years and have been amazed at the unprofessionalism,sheer incompetance, and financial greed shown by top drawer lawyers and barristers alike.
I have no idea how the legal system in the UK has such a good reputation, because it defies logic and is so corruply extortionate that justice does not come into it - the party with the deepest pockets will always win.
Sorry to rant -