Hubbry Logo
Judiciary of England and WalesJudiciary of England and WalesMain
Open search
Judiciary of England and Wales
Community hub
Judiciary of England and Wales
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Judiciary of England and Wales
Judiciary of England and Wales
Judiciary of England and Wales
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

This article is part of the series: Courts of England and Wales
Law of England and Wales
Administration
Civil and family courts
Criminal courts
Criminal prosecution
Legal profession

A simplified guide to where each grade of judge presides.

There are various levels of judiciary in England and Wales—different types of courts have different styles of judges. They also form a strict hierarchy of importance, in line with the order of the courts in which they sit, so that judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales are given more weight than district judges sitting in the County Court and magistrates' courts. On 1 April 2020 there were 3,174 judges in post in England and Wales.[1] Some judges with United Kingdom-wide jurisdiction also sit in England and Wales, particularly Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court and members of the tribunals judiciary.

By statute, judges are guaranteed continuing judicial independence.[2]

There have been multiple calls from both Welsh academics and politicians, however, for a distinct Welsh criminal justice system.[3][4][5]

The following is a list of the various types of judges who sit in the courts of England and Wales:[6]

Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor

[edit]
Main article: Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

Since 3 April 2006, the Lord Chief Justice has been the overall head of the judiciary.[7] Previously they were second to the Lord Chancellor, but the judicial functions of that office were transferred to the Lord Chief Justice under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The Lord Chief Justice is also the president of the courts and holds, amongst some 400 statutory functions, positions such as the head of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. Historically they were also President of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, but on becoming head of the judiciary that responsibility was transferred to a new office. The Lord Chief Justice is responsible for arranging training for the judiciary, which is achieved through the Judicial College.[8]

Although the Lord Chancellor is no longer a judge, he still exercises disciplinary authority over the judges, jointly with the Lord Chief Justice.[9] He also has a role in appointing judges, through control of the Judicial Appointments Commission.[10]

In law reports, the Lord Chief Justice is referred to as (for example) "Smith LCJ" or "Lord Smith CJ", and the Lord Chancellor as "Smith LC".

In court, the Lord Chief Justice wears a black damask gown with gold lace along with a short wig during criminal cases and the black civil gown with gold tabs during civil cases. Ceremonially, the Lord Chief Justice wears the red robe with white trim along with a gold chain and full wig.

The Lord Chancellor wears white winged shirt with ruffled collar, black waistcoat, and black coat underneath the black damask gown with gold lace, and black knee-length breeches with black silk stockings, and full-bottomed wig during ceremonial occasions.

Heads of Division

[edit]

There are four Heads of Divisions aside from the Lord Chief Justice: the Master of the Rolls, the President of the King's Bench Division, the President of the Family Division and the Chancellor of the High Court.[11]

The Master of the Rolls is head of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. The other Heads are in charge of the three divisions of the High Court.

The Chancellor of the High Court is president of the Chancery Division of the High Court. Until 2006 this role was nominally held by the Lord Chancellor, but was in practice delegated to the vice-chancellor. The vice-chancellor was renamed Chancellor of the High Court when the Lord Chancellor's judicial role was abolished.

The Heads of Division are referred to in law reports as "Smith MR", "Smith P", "Smith P", and "Smith C" respectively. Vice-chancellors from pre-2006 Chancery cases were referred to as "Smith VC".

In court, the Heads of Division wear a black damask gown with gold lace along with a short wig during criminal cases and the black civil gown with gold tabs during civil cases. Ceremonially, the Heads of Division wear red gowns with white trim along with full wigs except for the Master of the Rolls who wears the black damask gown with gold lace and full wig.

Court of Appeal

[edit]
Three Lords Justices in their ceremonial robes in procession at Llandaff Cathedral in 2013
See also: List of Lords Justices of Appeal

Judges of the Court of Appeal are known as Lords Justices, and they too[further explanation needed] are Privy Counsellors. Before swearing in they may be referred to as the Honourable Lord Justice Smith, and after swearing in as the Right Honourable Lord Justice Smith. Female Lord Justices are known as Lady Justices. Addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady". In law reports, referred to as "Smith LJ", and, for more than one judge, "Smith and Jones LJJ".

Formerly, Lords Justices of Appeal could only be drawn from barristers of at least 10 years' standing.[12] In practice, much greater experience was necessary and, in 2004, calls for increased diversity among the judiciary were recognised and the qualification period was changed[13][14] so that, as of 21 July 2008, a potential Lord Justice of Appeal must satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 7-year basis.[15]

The Lord Justices wear black silk gowns and court coats (or bar jackets) and short wigs during criminal cases and the black civil robe with gold tabs for civil cases. For ceremonial occasions, they wear the full wig and black damask gown with gold lace.[citation needed]

High Court justices, masters and Insolvency and Companies Court judges

[edit]
Main article: High Court judge (England and Wales)

High Court justices are not normally Privy Counsellors and are therefore referred to as the Honourable Mr/Mrs Justice Smith. Addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady". In law reports they are referred to as "Smith J", and, for more than one judge, "Smith and Jones JJ".

High Court justices normally wear a short wig along with red and black gowns for criminal cases, and a civil robe with red tabs without wig for civil cases and, when in open court, family cases. Judges of the Family Division sitting in private wear formal suits. Ceremonially, all High Court justices wear the red gown with white trim along with a full wig.

Four High Court justices in their ceremonial robes in procession at Llandaff Cathedral in 2013

A master is a level of judge in the High Court whose decisions are of equal standing to that of a High Court judge at first instance.[16][17] They are mainly responsible for trials and case management pre-trial in exclusively civil cases in London. They wear dark blue gowns with pink tabs in court and are addressed as 'Master', regardless of gender, or ‘Judge’. Ceremonially, they wear a full-bottomed wig, court coat, jabot and black silk gown. Each division has a senior master, and each division has a different title:

The Senior Master of the King's Bench Division also holds the ancient judicial post of King's Remembrancer (Queen's Remembrancer when the monarch is female), and is also the registrar of election petitions and foreign judgments as well as being the designated authority for the Hague Service Convention and Hague Evidence Convention and receiving agency under the EU Service Regulation (EC 1348/2000) and EU Evidence Regulation (EC 1206/2001). The senior master is assisted in this role as Central Authority by the Foreign Process Section of the King's Bench Action Department at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The seven Insolvency and Companies Court judges, one of whom is the Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge,[18] hear and dispose of much of the High Court insolvency (both personal and corporate) and pure company law cases and trials in London (such as cases arising under the Insolvency Act 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Companies Acts and related legislation). They also hear appeals from district judges of the County Court in the south east region in company law and corporate insolvency matters.[19] For convenience, their title is often abbreviated to "ICC Judge".[20] They wear a dark blue gown with pink tabs in court (but no longer wear wigs) and are addressed as 'Judge'. Ceremonially, they wear a full-bottomed wig, court coat, jabot and black silk gown. As judges exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court their decisions are of equal standing to that of a High Court justice at first instance.[21]

Masters and ICC judges are not referred to with a post-nominal abbreviation in the law reports, and appear as "Master Smith" or "ICC Judge Smith". Formerly, masters and ICC judges could only be drawn from barristers and solicitors of at least seven years' standing. However, in 2004, calls for increased diversity among the judiciary were recognised and the qualification period was changed so that, as of 21 July 2008, a potential master or ICC judge must satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a five-year basis.

Circuit judges

[edit]
Main article: Circuit judge (England and Wales)

Circuit judges are referred to as His/Her Honour Judge {surname} e.g. His/Her Honour Judge Smith. If a circuit judge is appointed who has the same surname as another serving circuit judge, he (she) will be referred to as His (Her) Honour Judge {first name} {surname}. e.g. His Honour Judge John Smith. Circuit judges are addressed as "Your Honour", unless sitting in the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey), in which case addressed as "My Lord (Lady)". Senior circuit judges who sit as the honorary recorder of a borough or city are also entitled to be addressed in court as "my lord/lady." In law reports, circuit judges are referred to as "HHJ Smith", or simply, "Judge Smith."

Formerly, circuit judges could only be drawn from barristers and solicitors of at least ten years' standing.[22] However, in 2004, calls for increased diversity among the judiciary were recognised and the qualification period was changed[13][14] so that, as of 21 July 2008, a potential circuit judge must satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a seven-year basis.[15]

For criminal cases, circuit judges wear a violet and purple gown with a red sash and short wig and for civil cases exchange the red sash for a lilac one. Circuit judges sitting in civil proceedings no longer wear wigs, wing collars, or bands. Ceremonially, they wear purple robes with a purple trim and a full wig.

Recorders

[edit]
Main article: Recorder (judge)

A recorder is a part-time circuit judge, usually a practising barrister, solicitor or a member of the courts or tribunal judiciary who is not a full-time circuit judge. Recorders are addressed in court in the same way as circuit judges (as 'Your Honour'). There is no formal abbreviation for the position and recorders are referred to as 'Mr/Mrs Recorder Smith' (as opposed to circuit judges, who can be referred to as 'HHJ Smith' in judgements, law reports or other legal documents).

Formerly, recorders could only be drawn from barristers of at least 10 years' standing.[23] However, in 2004, calls for increased diversity among the judiciary were recognised and the qualification period was changed[13][14] so that, as of 21 July 2008, a potential recorder must satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a seven-year basis.[15]

The senior circuit judge in a metropolitan area will often be given the honorary title of the recorder of the city – e.g. the Recorder of Manchester. Despite still being circuit judges, these recorders are addressed in court as 'My Lord/Lady' as if they were High Court judges.

District judges

[edit]

District judge is the title given to two different categories of judges. One group of district judges sit in the county courts and have jurisdiction in civil and family cases, having previously been known as registrars until the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The other group sit in the magistrates' courts and were formerly known as stipendiary magistrates until the Access to Justice Act 1999. Members of this latter group are more formally known as "district judge (magistrates' courts)" (see the Courts Act 2003). Judges in both groups are addressed as "Judge". In law reports, they are referred to as "DJ Smith".

Formerly, district judges could only be drawn from barristers and solicitors of at least seven years' standing. However, in 2004, calls for increased diversity among the judiciary were recognised and the qualification period was changed[13][14] so that, since 21 July 2008, a potential district judge must satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a five-year basis.[15] From November 2010, other types of lawyer, such as legal executives (fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx)), also became eligible to be district judges.

The senior district judge (magistrates' courts) is also known as the Chief Magistrate.[24]

Deputy district judges

[edit]

A deputy district judge is a solicitor or barrister who sits part-time as a district judge (who may be taking their first steps on the route to becoming a full-time district judge). Retired district judges sometimes sit as deputies. They are addressed as "Judge".[25] In law reports, they are referred to as, for example, "DDJ Smith".

Formerly, deputy district judges could only be drawn from barristers and solicitors of at least seven years' standing. However, in 2004, calls for increased diversity among the judiciary were recognised and the qualification period was changed[13][14] so that, since 21 July 2008, a potential deputy district judge must satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a five-year basis[15] and so that other types of lawyers, such as chartered legal executives (CILEx Fellows), would be eligible. In August 2010, Ian Ashley-Smith became the first CILEx Fellow to be directly appointed as a deputy district judge (civil).[26]

Judicial office holders

[edit]

There are a range of professionals who support the judiciary in complex legal cases where there is an interface between the law and another professional area. In these matters, sometimes non-legally qualified judges are appointed to preside over specialist areas. These judges are sometimes referred to as fee-paid (judiciary) officer holders, or non-legal members. An example are those appointed by the Lord Chancellor to sit over Mental Health Review Tribunal. Within this tribunal, there are three panel judges, one will be a legally qualified lawyer, whilst the other two are drawn from the mental health professions, such as social work, nursing or psychology, these are known as Specialist Lay Members. The other is a consultant psychiatrist, known as the Medical Member. All members are addressed as "Sir" or "Madam", but unlike magistrates, these members are paid for their service, normally a day rate for sitting. Also unlike their magistrate counterparts, these members are recruited in the same manner as other judges via the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Magistrates

[edit]
Main article: Magistrates of England and Wales

Magistrates (also known as justices of the peace) are trained volunteers appointed from the local community, who generally sit in threes in order to give judgment in magistrates' courts and youth courts.[27] The chair is addressed as "Sir" or "Madam" or the bench is addressed as "Your Worships".[28]

Judicial salaries

[edit]

There are eight pay points for judges in the United Kingdom (including England and Wales). The following is a simplified list of annual judicial salaries from 1 April 2024, showing only the most widely-held grades and some of the best known specific appointments. A complete list of all the posts at each pay point can be found on the website of the Ministry of Justice.[29]

  • Group 1: Lord Chief Justice, £312,510
  • Group 1.1: Master of the Rolls, £279,051
  • Group 2: Heads of the High Court divisions, £269,530
  • Group 3: Lord Justices of Appeal, £256,304
  • Group 4: High Court judges and certain others, £225,092
  • Group 5: Numerous specialist appointments, including senior circuit judges and Judge Advocate General, £180,522
  • Group 5.1: Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge, Chief Chancery Master, Senior King's Bench Master and certain others, £173,856
  • Group 5.2: High Court Insolvency and Companies Court Judges, High Court Masters, circuit judges and certain others, £167,167
  • Group 6: Vice-Judge Advocate General and certain others, £157,380
  • Group 7: District judges of the County Court and magistrates' courts, employment judges, judges of the First Tier Tribunal and several other appointments, £134,105
  • Group 8: Salaried (Regional) Medical Members, Social Entitlement Chamber, £106,563

Judges also have a pension scheme, the 1993 and earlier versions of which were once considered to be one of the most generous in the British public sector.[30]

The administrative body of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is classified as a non-ministerial department. The Supreme Court is independent of the government of the UK, of Parliament, and of the court services of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It takes appeals from the Appeals Courts of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland, and Scotland's High Court of Justiciary (civil cases only[31]). The President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is paid at Group 1.1, while the Deputy President and the other ten members of the Supreme Court are paid at Group 2.[32]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Judiciary of England and Wales

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Judiciary of England and Wales consists of judges, magistrates, members, and coroners who interpret and apply the across a unified court system serving these jurisdictions, distinct from the separate systems in and . This independent branch of government, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, upholds the through hierarchical courts including the as the final appellate authority for civil cases UK-wide and criminal cases from England, Wales, and , alongside intermediate bodies like the Court of Appeal and trial-level venues such as the Crown Court and . Rooted in a tradition emphasizing precedent and evolving from medieval royal courts, the modern judiciary achieved formal separation from political branches via the , which established the Lord Chief Justice's leadership role and reinforced judicial autonomy against executive influence. Key defining characteristics include the fusion of legal and equitable remedies in the , the role of lay magistrates in lower courts for efficiency, and a commitment to amid ongoing debates over case backlogs, sentencing disparities, and potential ideological skews in judicial appointments, where empirical analyses suggest underrepresentation of certain perspectives despite processes.

Introduction and Overview

Definition and Jurisdiction

The of England and Wales consists of judicial office holders, including judges and magistrates, who administer justice through and tribunals in civil, criminal, family, and administrative matters. It functions as an independent of , evolved over more than 1,000 years under principles, and is headed by the Lord Chief Justice, who oversees judicial deployment, training, and guidance. The of the is territorial, confined to , distinct from the separate legal systems of and . It encompasses disputes and offenses where substantial activities occur within this area, covering county courts for most civil claims, magistrates' courts for summary criminal offenses, Courts for indictable crimes, and specialized tribunals for administrative and employment issues. Appeals from lower courts in may reach the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court, which exercises final authority on points of law of public importance, handling civil appeals UK-wide and criminal appeals from , , and . This appellate structure integrates the into the broader framework while preserving regional autonomy in first-instance proceedings.

Role in Common Law System

The judiciary of England and Wales operates within a system, where is primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than comprehensive codification. This system relies on precedents established by judges in resolving disputes, forming an independent source of that evolves incrementally. Judges interpret existing principles and apply them to new circumstances, thereby shaping legal rules on matters such as contracts, torts, and property rights absent explicit statutory guidance. Central to this role is the doctrine of stare decisis, which mandates that lower courts follow binding precedents from higher courts to ensure consistency and predictability. In the hierarchical court structure, decisions of the bind all inferior courts, while Court of Appeal rulings bind lower tribunals and itself, subject to exceptions for clear error or changed circumstances. This vertical precedent enforces uniformity across , distinguishing the system from civil law traditions that prioritize statutes over . Appellate courts, excluding the Supreme Court in certain historical contexts, are generally bound by their own prior decisions, reinforcing . Judges also contribute to law development by interpreting statutes within the framework, filling gaps through analogical reasoning and policy considerations aligned with legal principles. Where is ambiguous, courts discern parliamentary intent while preserving doctrines unless explicitly overridden. This interpretive function has historically adapted ancient customs to modern needs, such as in negligence through landmark rulings that established standards. The judiciary's autonomy in this process underscores its creative yet constrained , balancing evolution with fidelity to established authority. Through adversarial proceedings, judges adjudicate facts and apply , with their reasoned judgments serving as that guide future cases. This mechanism promotes causal realism in legal outcomes, grounding rules in empirical rather than abstract theory. The system's emphasis on judicial craftsmanship has exported principles globally, though in , it remains anchored to national sovereignty and evolving societal demands.

Historical Evolution

Medieval Foundations

The judicial framework in medieval England evolved from Anglo-Saxon local institutions, such as shire moots and hundred courts, which resolved disputes through administered by community assemblies under ealdormen or reeves. These bodies handled civil and minor criminal matters via oaths, , and ordeals, with the king exerting indirect influence through assemblies for major cases. The of 1066 under William I disrupted but did not dismantle this system; instead, it superimposed feudal obligations, preserving shire courts while centralizing authority in the royal household via the , a peripatetic advising on pleas of and feudal rights. This hybrid structure prioritized royal revenue from justice over wholesale replacement of local customs, setting the stage for expanded centralized adjudication. King Henry II's reign (1154–1189) marked a pivotal expansion of royal judicial power, transforming fragmented feudal courts into a proto-national system. Through writs like novel disseisin (1166) and mort d'ancestor, Henry enabled subjects to petition the directly for land recoveries, bypassing seigneurial and compelling itinerant justices to enforce standardized procedures nationwide. The (1166) further integrated local knowledge by requiring juries of twelve lawful men per hundred to present suspects for royal , curtailing ordeals and private feuds while asserting monopoly over serious felonies. These reforms, dispatched via eyres—circuit courts visiting counties every few years—fostered uniformity, with justices applying royal edicts over diverse regional customs, thus birthing the as a corpus of precedential decisions from centralized tribunals like the Court of Common Pleas, emerging by the late . By 1178, Henry formalized a permanent bench of professional justices, reducing reliance on clerics and lay magnates. The of 1215, extracted from King John amid baronial revolt, enshrined procedural safeguards that curbed arbitrary royal interference in justice. Clauses 39 and 40 mandated that no free man be imprisoned or disseised except by lawful judgment of peers or the , and prohibited selling, denying, or delaying right or justice. These provisions implicitly advanced by limiting executive override and affirming access to established courts, influencing later reissues and statutes like the (1258). In , English judicial influence lagged until Edward I's conquests (1277–1283), which imposed frameworks via statutes like the (1284), subordinating native Welsh cymwd courts to shire-based English models. By the , year books—early case reports from the 1290s—codified precedents, solidifying the judiciary's role in a precedent-driven system distinct from continental civil law.

19th and 20th Century Reforms

The County Courts Act 1846 established a network of local county courts across to adjudicate civil claims up to £20 in value, initially creating around 60 such courts to address the high costs and inaccessibility of superior courts for ordinary litigants. These courts handled the bulk of debt recovery and minor disputes, with jurisdiction limits gradually expanded through subsequent , such as to £50 by 1888, reflecting growing caseloads from industrial expansion. The of 1873 and 1875 represented the most significant overhaul of the superior , responding to inefficiencies from fragmented jurisdictions where and equity courts operated separately, often requiring litigants to initiate multiple actions. These acts abolished the pre-existing higher s and constituted the Supreme Court of Judicature, comprising the —divided into five divisions (Queen's Bench, Chancery, Common Pleas, , and , Divorce, and Admiralty)—and a new Court of Appeal for civil matters. By fusing and equity, judges gained authority to apply both sets of principles in a single proceeding, streamlining administration and reducing procedural delays, though Common Pleas and divisions were later merged into Queen's Bench in 1880. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 further reinforced the by formalizing the ' appellate role with appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, numbering two initially and expanding to enhance judicial specialization. In the 20th century, the Courts Act 1971 enacted the Beeching Committee's 1969 recommendations to modernize criminal courts, abolishing the itinerant (twice-yearly superior trials) and quarter sessions (local courts) that had persisted since . It created a unified as part of the Supreme Court, operating from approximately 90 fixed centers with High Court judges, circuit judges, and recorders handling indictable offenses, thereby centralizing administration, eliminating seasonal disruptions, and cutting travel burdens on participants. Magistrates' courts retained summary , with appeals routed to the . Late-century civil reforms, stemming from Lord Woolf's 1996 Access to Justice report, introduced the via the Access to Justice Act 1999, effective April 1999, empowering judges with active case management, pre-action protocols, and emphasis on proportionality to curb escalating costs and backlogs in High Court and county court proceedings. These changes shifted from adversarial passivity to judicial oversight, though empirical assessments noted mixed success in reducing litigation expenses.

Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and Aftermath

The , passed by the UK Parliament on 24 March 2005, introduced fundamental changes to the judiciary's structure and relationship with the executive and legislature in . Its primary judicial reforms included the creation of the of the , which assumed the appellate jurisdiction previously held by the Appellate Committee of the , thereby ending the practice of Law Lords serving dual roles as legislators and judges. This separation aimed to reinforce by removing the highest court from Parliament's chambers, addressing long-standing concerns over potential conflicts where judicial decisions could influence legislative peers or vice versa. The Act also reformed the 's role, transferring the head of the judiciary position to the Lord Chief Justice and imposing a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor and other ministers to uphold judicial independence without seeking to influence specific decisions. A key provision was the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) under section 61, tasked with recommending appointments to judicial office based on merit while promoting diversity, with the retaining final approval but limited power. The formally opened on 1 October 2009, with its 12 justices appointed from former Law Lords and other senior judges, operating from in . Tenure for justices was set at life appointments until age 70 or 75, subject to good behavior, mirroring prior conventions but codified for clarity. In the aftermath, the reforms enhanced institutional , with the gaining a distinct identity symbolized by the Supreme Court's separate building and website, reducing perceptions of fusion with . The JAC has processed thousands of appointments since , emphasizing merit criteria like intellectual capacity and , though critics from legal practitioner groups have noted slower diversity gains in senior roles compared to executive targets. has been tested by executive pressures, such as post-2016 rulings prompting ministerial criticisms, yet section 3's statutory protections have been invoked in parliamentary inquiries to rebuke such interventions. Funding constraints since the , including court backlogs and salary freezes, have strained operations without altering core independence structures, underscoring the Act's resilience amid fiscal . Overall, the changes have formalized protections against political encroachment, with empirical assessments indicating sustained public trust in judicial impartiality post-reform.

Constitutional Framework

Separation of Powers

The United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements embody a partial , distinct from stricter models such as that , where branches are rigidly divided to prevent overlap. In , the interprets and applies the law, the executive enforces it, and legislates, yet fusion persists between the executive and legislature, with the and ministers drawn from Parliament. This framework prioritizes , under which courts cannot invalidate primary legislation, ensuring the judiciary's role remains interpretive rather than override authority. safeguards this balance, with judges insulated from political pressure through secure tenure and appointment processes. The marked a pivotal enhancement to judicial separation from the legislature. Prior to its enactment, the Appellate Committee of the served as the final court of appeal, with Law Lords performing both judicial and legislative functions, raising concerns over perceived fusion. The Act established the of the United Kingdom, operational from 1 October 2009, which assumed the Lords' appellate jurisdiction and relocated judicial proceedings to an independent venue, . justices are barred from sitting or voting in the , reinforcing functional separation. Concurrently, the Act diminished the 's judicial headship, transferring it to the Lord Chief Justice for , while imposing a statutory on the and ministers to protect against improper interference. Further distinctions from strict separation arise in executive-judiciary relations. While the executive appoints judges via the —established under the Act to prioritize merit over political allegiance—superior court judges in hold office during good behaviour, removable only by via address for misconduct, not executive whim. Lower court judges face removal post-disciplinary proceedings, maintaining accountability without undermining tenure. enables scrutiny of executive actions for legality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, as affirmed in cases like Council of Civil Service Unions v (1984), yet courts defer to ministerial policy discretion absent unlawfulness. The permits declarations of incompatibility with Convention rights but stops short of nullifying statutes, preserving Parliament's ultimate authority. This arrangement, while not absolute, fosters judicial impartiality through conventions and statutes, evidenced by low removal rates—none for superior judges since —and metrics, such as the 2023 Judiciary of England and Wales survey reporting 72% confidence in fairness. Critics, including some constitutional scholars, argue residual overlaps, like funding dependencies or ministerial consultations on appointments, risk subtle influences, though empirical data shows no systemic executive sway over rulings. Overall, the post-2005 structure aligns judicial functions with rule-of-law principles, enabling robust checks on power without encroaching on democratic primacy.

Judicial Independence Guarantees

Judicial independence in is safeguarded through constitutional conventions, statutory provisions, and institutional arrangements that protect judges from external pressures, ensuring decisions are made impartially based on and . Central to these guarantees is the principle that the must be, and be seen to be, free from influence by the executive, , or other interests. Security of tenure for superior court judges, established by the , provides that judges hold office quamdiu se bene gesserint (during good behaviour) and can only be removed by an address to the from both Houses of , a process requiring substantial cross-party consensus and rarely invoked. This protection, codified for judges and above under section 11 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (now Senior Courts Act 1981), prevents arbitrary dismissal and shields judges from political retaliation. judges, such as district judges, enjoy similar tenure protections post-appointment, though initial terms may be probationary. Judicial salaries are charged directly to the Consolidated Fund, bypassing annual parliamentary approval and insulating judges from budgetary leverage by the executive or legislature. Salaries for senior roles, such as Justices of the Supreme Court at £294,180 annually (as of April 2025), and High Court judges at £192,313, are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and set by statutory instrument, with increases tied to inflation or civil service comparators to maintain financial security. The judicial , prescribed by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, requires judges to swear: "I, [name], do swear that I will well and truly serve our Lord the King in the office of [office], and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." This oath underscores the duty to and , binding judges personally to resist . The reinforces these protections by imposing a statutory duty on the and all ministers to "uphold the continued independence of the " and to "have regard to the need for the to have the support necessary to enable them to carry out their functions." Section 3(5) explicitly prohibits seeking to influence particular judicial decisions through special access to judges, addressing historical overlaps in roles like the former 's position. Complementing this, the 2007 Concordat between the and the delineates responsibilities for judicial administration, transferring operational control to the via (under joint oversight but with judicial leadership), further insulating courts from executive direction. Judges also benefit from immunity from civil suits or criminal liability for acts performed in within their , preserving decisional freedom without fear of personal repercussions. Disciplinary mechanisms, handled independently by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, address misconduct without compromising tenure for legitimate rulings. These layered safeguards collectively ensure the 's operational , though critics note potential vulnerabilities in during fiscal constraints, where ministerial influence could indirectly arise despite formal prohibitions.

Relationship with Parliament and Executive

The judiciary of England and Wales operates within a constitutional framework dominated by , under which courts are bound to apply Acts of and possess no authority to invalidate primary legislation. This principle, articulated by in 1885 and reaffirmed in judicial decisions such as R (Jackson) v Attorney General UKHL 56, ensures that remains the ultimate source of legal authority, with the judiciary's role confined to interpretation and application rather than substantive override. Consequently, while courts may issue declarations of incompatibility under section 4 of the if legislation conflicts with Convention rights, such declarations are non-binding, leaving free to amend, retain, or disregard the law as it sees fit; for instance, following the declaration in R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice UKSC 38 regarding laws, declined to legislate change. The formalized greater separation from by establishing the as an institution physically and institutionally distinct from the , effective from 1 October 2009, thereby ending the practice of Law Lords serving dual roles as judges and legislators. This reform addressed long-standing concerns over perceived fusion of judicial and legislative functions, enhancing without altering parliamentary supremacy; the Act's preamble explicitly upholds the alongside sovereignty and independence. Interactions remain indirect: legislates on structures, jurisdictions, and sentencing guidelines—such as through the Courts Act 2003 or Sentencing Act 2020—while the judiciary provides advisory input via the Lord Chief Justice's annual evidence to parliamentary committees, but without veto power. Relations with the Executive emphasize judicial oversight via , particularly , which scrutinizes executive decisions for legality, rationality, and procedural propriety under principles derived from . Landmark cases illustrate this dynamic: in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union UKSC 5, the ruled on 24 January 2017 that the Executive could not trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval, affirming that powers yield to statutory frameworks; similarly, in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister UKSC 41 on 24 September 2019, the Court unanimously declared the of unlawful as it frustrated legislative functions, curbing executive overreach without encroaching on sovereignty. The retains a statutory duty under sections 3 and 17 of the Act to protect , including safeguarding tenure, salaries, and operational autonomy, though the Executive influences via funding allocations—totaling £2.4 billion for courts and tribunals in 2023-24—and senior appointments, where the formally appoints judges recommended by the independent . Despite these checks, the Executive cannot direct judicial outcomes, as evidenced by the 's resistance to ministerial pressures in high-profile or security matters.

Court Structure

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established under Part 3 of the , which received on 24 March 2005 and provided the statutory framework for its creation. It formally opened on 1 October 2009, assuming the jurisdiction previously exercised by the Appellate Committee of the , thereby ending the practice of law lords serving dual roles as legislators and judges. This reform addressed long-standing concerns over the fusion of judicial and legislative powers, promoting a clearer separation within the uncodified constitution by relocating the highest appellate functions to an independent institution housed in the . As the apex of the judicial hierarchy, the exercises final appellate jurisdiction over civil cases from across the and criminal cases from , , and ; Scottish criminal appeals terminate at the . Appeals are limited to arguable points of law of general public importance, typically granted by the Court itself upon application or certification from lower courts, such as the Court of Appeal in , with permission required to prevent . The Court also adjudicates devolution disputes under the , Government of Wales Act 2006, and , ensuring compliance with legislative competences. Proceedings are conducted publicly, with judgments delivered in writing and often live-streamed since 2009 to enhance transparency, though hearings may be held in private for reasons. The Court comprises 12 Justices, including a President and Deputy President, all styled as Justices of the Supreme Court and appointed for life until mandatory retirement at age 75 or earlier resignation. Appointments occur upon vacancy via an ad hoc selection commission convened by the Lord Chancellor, comprising the most senior available Supreme Court judge, a non-UK Supreme Court member, the Lord Chief Justice of (or equivalent), the Senior President of Tribunals, and a lay member nominated by the . Candidates must satisfy statutory criteria: holding high judicial office for at least two years or possessing 15 years of experience as a qualified , with selections based on merit, including intellectual capacity, judgment, and ability to handle complex cases impartially. The commission recommends a single name to the , who advises the , bypassing political veto except in exceptional circumstances. Cases are heard by panels of five Justices for standard appeals, expanding to seven or nine for those raising constitutional or multi-jurisdictional issues, with the full (11 members, excluding the most junior if needed) reserved for matters of exceptional significance; decisions are by majority, with dissenting opinions permitted. The President, elected by peers for a renewable three-year term, manages the Court's business, allocates cases, and represents it externally, currently held by Lord Reed of Allermuir since 2020. Funded through the with a 2023-2024 budget of approximately £8.5 million, the Court operates with administrative , underscoring its role in upholding the without executive interference.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal serves as the principal appellate court in , positioned immediately below the in the judicial hierarchy. Established by the Judicature Act 1875, it reviews decisions from lower courts to ensure legal correctness and fairness in their application. The court operates from the Royal Courts of Justice in and is divided into two permanent divisions: the Civil Division and the Criminal Division, each handling distinct categories of appeals. The Civil Division, presided over by the , adjudicates appeals in civil, family, and certain administrative matters originating from the , , and tribunals. It examines issues such as errors in law, fact, or procedure, with permission to appeal typically required from the lower court or the Court of Appeal itself. Proceedings follow the , emphasizing efficiency and proportionality in resolving disputes. Cases are usually heard by panels of three judges, though two or five may convene for complex or significant matters. The Criminal Division, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, focuses on appeals against convictions and sentences from the Crown Court. It assesses whether trials were conducted lawfully, including challenges to verdicts or judicial directions, and possesses powers to quash convictions, reduce sentences, or order retrials. Hearings generally involve three judges, often comprising one Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal and two judges, governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules. The court's judiciary consists of Lords and Ladies Justices of Appeal, with statutory provision for up to 39 full-time positions under the Senior Courts Act 1981, supplemented by ex officio members including the Lord Chief Justice, , and presidents of divisions. judges may also sit as needed to manage caseloads. Appointments are made by the on advice from the , following recommendations by the , prioritizing judicial merit and experience. Decisions from the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the only with permission, granted if the case raises points of general public importance.

High Court Divisions

The High Court of Justice in is divided into three specialist divisions: the , the Chancery Division, and the Family Division, each addressing distinct categories of civil jurisdiction while sharing the pool of approximately 108 judges. Cases are allocated to divisions based on their subject matter, with judges often specializing within one division though cross-assignment occurs for workload balance. The divisions operate primarily from the Royal Courts of Justice in , with some regional hearings, and exercise alongside appellate functions in limited administrative matters. The King's Bench Division, the largest division with up to 71 judges at full strength, handles the broadest range of civil litigation, including claims for , torts such as and , libel, debt recovery, and proceedings. It also possesses supervisory over inferior courts and tribunals through applications, certain criminal appeals from magistrates' courts, and Admiralty matters involving maritime disputes. Specialist courts within the division include the for challenges, the Commercial Court for high-value business disputes, and the Technology and Construction Court for engineering and IT-related claims, supporting arbitrations seated in . Presided over by the President of the King's Bench Division, currently Dame DBE as of 2023, it emphasizes procedural efficiency via guides like the 11th edition of the King's Bench Division Guide. The Chancery Division focuses on equity and commercial matters, adjudicating disputes over real and , trusts, mortgages, rights, , , tax partnerships, and the validity of wills or administration. It processes competition claims under relevant statutes and supports business restructurings, with cases often involving complex financial evidence. Headed by the , the division maintains regional centres outside to enhance accessibility for property and litigation. Its jurisdiction derives from historical equity principles, ensuring remedies like where prove inadequate. The Family Division exercises jurisdiction over intricate proceedings, particularly those requiring inherent jurisdiction for child welfare beyond the scope of the , such as declaring a child a ward of or addressing international under the or Brussels IIa Regulation. It handles cases involving protection orders, female genital mutilation proceedings, and post-divorce financial relief where foreign elements complicate jurisdiction, alongside appeals from the on complex custody, , or inherent jurisdiction matters. Led by the President of the Family Division, the division transfers less complex cases to the concurrent established in 2014, prioritizing and expedition in hearings. involvement ensures rigorous scrutiny in high-stakes scenarios, such as vulnerability assessments or international enforcement.

Crown, County, and Magistrates' Courts

The Magistrates' Courts, County Courts, and form the primary tier of trial courts in the criminal and civil justice systems of , handling the majority of cases before escalation to higher courts. All criminal proceedings commence in Magistrates' Courts, which adjudicate summary offenses and conduct initial hearings for either-way offenses, committing the most serious matters to the for trial. County Courts address the bulk of civil litigation, including disputes, claims, and debt recovery, while the focuses exclusively on indictable criminal offenses requiring jury determination of guilt. These courts operate under statutes such as the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and the County Courts Act 1984, emphasizing efficiency for lower-stakes matters. Magistrates' Courts, numbering approximately 300 across England and Wales, process over 90% of criminal cases, including minor offenses like theft under £200 or , as well as preliminary and sentencing decisions. Hearings occur without juries, presided over by panels of two or three lay magistrates—unpaid volunteers trained in but lacking formal qualifications—or single District Judges (Magistrates' Courts), who possess full-time judicial authority and handle complex or extradition-related matters. Civil includes enforcement of local authority debts, such as arrears, and limited family proceedings transferred to the . Maximum penalties include up to six months' imprisonment or fines up to £5,000 per offense for triable-either-way cases, with appeals lying to the Crown Court. The Crown Court, situated in over 70 centers, assumes jurisdiction for all indictable offenses—such as , , and serious —and certain either-way offenses not retained by Magistrates' Courts, conducting trials before a and 12-person drawn from local electoral rolls. Circuit Judges or Recorders preside, determining sentences post-verdict, with unlimited sentencing powers including . It also hears appeals from Magistrates' Courts on or sentence, reheard de novo by and where is challenged. Established under the Courts Act 1971, the court integrates former assize and quarter sessions functions, prioritizing cases by gravity via listing officers. County Courts, comprising around 170 hearing centers each serving defined geographic areas, adjudicate most civil claims under £100,000, encompassing , housing disputes, and landlord-tenant issues, with provisions for transfer to the for high-value or complex actions per the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991. Proceedings may involve Circuit Judges, District Judges, or deputy district judges, often without juries except in rare or malicious falsehood cases. Specialized functions include petitions at designated centers and enforcement of judgments via writs or warrants. Since the Crime and Courts Act 2013, many centers have consolidated into fewer sites to streamline administration while maintaining local access.

Judicial Appointments and Qualifications

Judicial Appointments Commission

The (JAC) was established by the as an independent to select candidates for judicial office in the courts and tribunals of , as well as certain tribunals with UK-wide jurisdiction. This reform aimed to enhance by removing direct executive control over appointments, previously held by the , and introducing a merit-based, transparent process conducted through open competition. The JAC's primary statutory duty is to recommend appointees possessing merit and good character, with selections intended to support an independent and high-quality judiciary. The Commission consists of 15 members, including a lay chairman. Of the remaining 14 commissioners, 6 are serving or former judicial members (including at least 2 judges), 2 are professional members (one a practising and one a practising solicitor), 5 are lay members without legal backgrounds, and 1 is a lay . Most commissioners are appointed through open public competitions overseen by the , except for three judicial members nominated by the Judges' ; terms typically last five years, with a maximum of ten years' service. This composition ensures input from judicial experts, legal practitioners, s, and non-legal public representatives to balance professional insight with broader societal perspectives. The JAC conducts selection exercises upon receiving vacancy requests from the , assessing candidates against criteria emphasizing intellectual and analytical ability, sound judgment, decisiveness, communication skills, and personal qualities such as integrity and authority. Panels for individual exercises include at least one judicial member and one lay member, often chaired by a lay person, and culminate in recommendations to the for most appointments or to senior judicial office-holders for leadership roles. Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, when candidates are deemed of equal merit, the JAC may apply a diversity tie-breaker to encourage judicial representation reflecting , though merit remains the overriding principle; this provision has drawn criticism from some legal commentators for potentially prioritizing demographic factors over strict competence in borderline cases. The JAC supports its operations with approximately 90 staff and publishes annual reports detailing selection outcomes, such as recommending over 1,000 candidates since inception, while maintaining data on applicant diversity to inform recruitment strategies without compromising core merit standards.

Selection Process and Criteria

The selection process for judicial appointments in England and Wales is governed by the , which established the (JAC) to conduct open competitions for most judicial roles. The JAC advertises vacancies publicly, receives applications, and recommends candidates to the , who formally appoints them following statutory consultation with senior judiciary. The Lord Chancellor's veto power is limited: rejection requires written reasons and can occur only once per vacancy, with any further objection needing parliamentary approval. Eligibility criteria vary by judicial office but generally require candidates to be citizens of the , Commonwealth, or , and to satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition as a qualifying practitioner—such as a , solicitor, or other legal professional—with experience thresholds of 5 to 15 years depending on the role's seniority. For instance, judges must have at least 7 years of post-qualification experience or equivalent, while justices require 15 years as a qualifying practitioner or 2 years in high judicial office. Lay magistrates, who are not legally qualified, must demonstrate good character and local knowledge without formal legal experience requirements. The process typically spans several months and includes multiple stages: initial application review for eligibility and good character; shortlisting via paper sifts, qualifying tests, or situational assessments; and statutory consultations with serving judges; and final selection days involving panel interviews and exercises. Panels, comprising JAC commissioners, judicial members, and lay representatives, evaluate candidates rigorously, often handling hundreds of applications for few positions. For senior appointments like Court of Appeal judges, consultations may involve the Lord Chief Justice providing non-binding views on suitability. Selections are made solely on merit, assessed against the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework (JSAF), a unified structure revised in 2025 to encompass three core areas: Legal and Judicial Skills (e.g., analytical ability, knowledge of , and judicial ); Communication Skills and Personal Qualities (e.g., , , , and clarity in delivery); and Effective Working (e.g., case management, decisiveness, and adaptability). Candidates must provide evidence of these competencies through self-assessments, references, and performance in interviews or simulations, with the framework aligning recruitment, training, and appraisal for consistency. Where multiple candidates are deemed of equal merit under the JSAF—meaning no one demonstrably outperforms others—the JAC may apply the equal merit provision to prioritize underrepresented groups, currently limited to (favoring women) or (favoring ethnic minorities over white candidates), provided underrepresentation is evidenced by and judicial diversity statistics. This tie-breaker operates at shortlisting (via sub-committee decision) or final selection (potentially requiring second interviews), remains proportionate to diversity goals, and does not override superior merit; the JAC reports usage annually and reviews policy periodically.

Merit, Diversity, and Criticisms

The (JAC) assesses merit in judicial selections primarily through criteria encompassing intellectual and analytical ability, sound judgment, decisiveness, communication skills, authority, personal qualities such as integrity and , and the capacity to understand and address the needs of court users. These attributes are evaluated via application forms, references, and interviews, with the statutory duty to select solely on merit overriding other considerations unless candidates are deemed of equal merit. Under the , when two or more candidates are of equal merit, the JAC may prefer the one that best encourages diversity in the judiciary, though this provision has been applied narrowly, primarily at shortlisting and final selection stages since 2019. Diversity initiatives aim to broaden representation while adhering to merit principles, with the JAC required by to have regard for encouraging diversity in appointments. As of 1 April , the judiciary in remained predominantly white (86.1%) and male, with ethnic minorities comprising 8.2% (primarily Asian at that figure) and women holding about 38% of judicial posts overall. Progress has been incremental: ethnic minority judges increased from 7% in 2015 to 12% by , driven partly by targeted and the equal merit rule, though female representation at senior levels, such as the , lags at around 30%. In 2024-25, nearly 900 appointments included 58% women and 13% from ethnic minorities, reflecting recruitment efforts but highlighting persistent gaps relative to the general population and eligible legal pool. Criticisms of the appointments process center on the inherent tension between merit primacy and diversity encouragement, with some arguing that subjective merit assessments perpetuate elitism and exclude capable candidates from underrepresented groups due to biases in pipelines. Others contend that expanding the equal merit provision risks diluting standards, as "equal merit" determinations rely on panel judgments that may prioritize diversity over nuanced differences in judicial aptitude, potentially undermining public confidence in appointments as purely competence-based. Proposals for diversity targets have faced opposition, with legal professionals and commentators labeling them the "wrong approach" for implying quotas that could compromise merit and invite perceptions of , as evidenced in debates over solicitor underrepresentation and slow senior-level diversification. Additionally, the JAC's limited use of equal merit—applied in under 5% of exercises historically—has drawn critique for insufficiently addressing underrepresentation without clearer definitions of merit to mitigate unconscious biases favoring traditional profiles. These concerns persist amid reports of constitutional risks from homogeneity, though empirical data on post-appointment performance shows no clear causal link between diversity measures and diminished judicial .

Judicial Hierarchy and Roles

Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor

The Lord Chief Justice serves as the head of the judiciary in , a role established under the (CRA 2005), which transferred judicial leadership from the to this position to enhance . The incumbent, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, appointed on 1 October 2023, presides over the Courts of as president and holds statutory responsibility as head of criminal justice. In this capacity, the Lord Chief Justice deploys judges, allocates court business, and represents judicial interests to and government ministers, including through bodies like the Judicial Executive Board and Judges' Council. The office holder may sit in any court, including magistrates' courts, and typically hears appeals in the Court of Appeal's criminal and civil divisions. The , concurrently the Secretary of State for Justice, functions as a senior Cabinet minister overseeing the Ministry of Justice's policy, strategy, and cross-cutting justice issues, but lacks direct judicial authority following CRA 2005 reforms. has held the position since 5 September 2025, with a statutory to respect and defend and uphold the . Responsibilities include setting the organizational framework for courts, including jurisdictional boundaries, and funding judicial resources, though day-to-day judicial administration rests with the Lord Chief Justice per the 2005 agreement between the roles. The retains involvement in senior appointments, such as recommending the Lord Chief Justice to the , and shares disciplinary oversight for certain judicial misconduct cases. Post-CRA 2005, the relationship emphasizes mutual accountability while preserving judicial autonomy: the Lord Chief Justice leads on operational matters like judge deployment and case allocation, while the focuses on legislative and resource support, with both collaborating on systemic issues via regular consultations. This division addressed prior overlaps where the Lord Chancellor held executive, legislative, and judicial powers, aiming to safeguard against political influence on court decisions. Breaches of independence by the Lord Chancellor could trigger removal via parliamentary address, reinforcing constitutional checks.

Heads of Division and High Court Judges

High Court judges constitute the senior judicial tier responsible for adjudicating complex civil disputes exceeding specified financial thresholds, significant criminal trials in the Crown Court, judicial reviews, and assisting in Court of Appeal hearings. They are formally addressed as "The Honourable Mr/Mrs/Ms Justice [Surname]" and serve until the compulsory retirement age of 75, subject to good behavior. Appointments are made by the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, following selection by the Judicial Appointments Commission based on merit, with candidates typically requiring at least 15 years of post-qualification experience as barristers, solicitors, or equivalent. As of recent records, there are approximately 108 High Court judges, distributed across the court's three divisions. Each division of the is led by a Head of Division, who holds a leadership role among the judges (ordinary High Court judges excluding heads) and coordinates case allocation, judicial welfare, and administrative efficiency within their , while also hearing cases. The Heads report to the Lord Chief Justice and often possess ex officio membership in the Court of Appeal. The , the largest with 71 judges, addresses civil claims involving contracts, torts, , and , alongside overseeing specialist courts such as the Commercial Court and ; it also deploys judges for high-profile trials nationwide. Its head, the President of the King's Bench Division, manages these operations; the incumbent is Dame DBE, appointed in 2019. The Chancery Division, comprising 18 judges, specializes in equity matters including company law, patents, land disputes, trusts, probate, and bankruptcy, with sittings in , , Birmingham, , and . The serves as its head, overseeing these functions; Sir Julian Flaux holds the position as of October 2025, with Lord Justice Colin Birss appointed to succeed him effective 1 November 2025. The Family Division, with up to 19 judges, adjudicates family law issues such as , , , and cases under the Court of Protection for vulnerable adults lacking capacity. The President of the Family Division leads this area; Sir Andrew McFarlane has held the role since 28 July 2018.
DivisionHead of Division PositionCurrent Holder (as of October 2025)Number of Judges
King's BenchPresidentDame DBE71
ChanceryChancellorSir Julian Flaux (until 1 Nov 2025)18
FamilyPresidentSir Andrew McFarlaneUp to 19
High Court judges may be temporarily assigned across divisions or seconded to tribunals, ensuring flexibility in addressing caseload demands, though most specialize within their assigned division. Senior judges, distinct from Heads, may also sit as Court of Appeal judges on a rotational basis.

Circuit Judges and Recorders

Circuit judges are salaried, full-time judicial officers in who rank below judges but above district judges in the judicial hierarchy. They are appointed by the King on the advice of the , following selection by the based on merit, ability, and good character. Eligibility requires candidates to be qualified lawyers who have held a right of audience in the higher courts for at least seven years, or to have held a judicial office such as Recorder for at least three years. There are over 600 circuit judges, assigned to one of six regional circuits covering . In the Crown Court, circuit judges preside over trials for indictable offences, including serious crimes such as , , and , and handle sentencing for cases committed by magistrates' courts where the maximum penalty exceeds certain thresholds. In the County Court, they adjudicate civil claims exceeding £25,000, complex business disputes, and certain family matters if authorized, with some specializing in areas like Chancery or cases. Selected senior circuit judges may also sit as judges of the High Court or in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), and they manage court efficiency alongside their caseloads. Recorders serve as part-time, fee-paid judges, typically practicing barristers or solicitors who undertake judicial duties alongside their professional work, often as a pathway to salaried appointments like circuit judge. They are appointed by the King on the recommendation of the , via selection by the , for an initial five-year term that may be renewed. Candidates must possess at least five to seven years of post-qualification experience as legally qualified professionals and commit to at least 30 sitting days per year. New appointees undergo induction training, including shadowing a circuit judge for one week and attending continuation courses every three years. Recorders exercise jurisdiction in the Crown Court and , focusing on less complex or serious cases than those typically handled by circuit judges, such as intermediate criminal trials or civil hearings. Their responsibilities include case management, assisting parties in trial preparation, presiding over hearings, and delivering judgments on applications and trials. Assigned to circuits like circuit judges, they may sit nationwide but primarily handle matters within their region, contributing to court flexibility amid fluctuating demands.

District Judges and Magistrates

District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) are salaried professional judges who preside over cases in magistrates' courts, typically sitting alone without robes. They handle criminal proceedings, youth cases, and certain civil matters, including , terrorism-related hearings, and proceedings where authorized. These judges possess a minimum of five years' right of audience in criminal, civil, or family courts and are often selected after serving as deputy district judges for at least two years or 30 sitting days. Appointments are made by the King on the recommendation of the , following open competition managed by the . There are approximately 150 full-time District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) in , supplemented by fee-paid deputy district judges who must commit to at least 15 days per year and hold similar qualifications, such as being qualified barristers, solicitors, or chartered legal executives with relevant experience. Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, are volunteer lay judges numbering 14,576 across England and Wales as of 1 April 2024, who adjudicate the vast majority—about 95%—of criminal cases entering the system, alongside civil, family, and youth matters. Unlike District Judges, they require no formal legal qualifications, instead demonstrating key qualities such as good character, impartiality, empathy, and communication skills during selection. They sit in panels of two or three, chaired by a presiding justice with additional training, and receive legal advice from qualified court clerks but make independent decisions on facts and sentencing within guidelines. Training is mandatory post-appointment, covering court procedures and observation sittings, with ongoing development for complex areas like family law. Magistrates serve part-time, up to 26 half-days annually, from age 18 until 75, and handle penalties including fines, community orders, and imprisonment up to 12 months per offense (or six months in youth courts). In magistrates' courts, cases may be allocated to either District Judges or magistrates based on complexity, urgency, or availability, with professional judges often deployed for efficiency in legally intricate or high-volume matters due to their expertise. Both groups hold office independently, supported by the Lord Chief Justice, but District Judges' full-time status and legal training enable swifter case progression compared to lay benches. Deputy magistrates exist in limited advisory roles, but the core distinction lies in professional versus volunteer composition, ensuring accessibility while maintaining judicial capacity.

Administration and Accountability

Judicial Salaries and Resources

Judicial salaries in are set annually by the , following recommendations from the independent Senior Salaries Review Body, which considers factors such as recruitment, retention, and comparability with senior roles. These salaries apply to full-time salaried judicial office holders and are published by the Ministry of Justice, with adjustments typically effective from 1 April each year to account for and other economic pressures. Salaries are organized into groups reflecting seniority and responsibility, with the highest for the most senior positions. For the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, the structure includes:
Salary GroupAnnual Full-Time SalaryKey Judicial Offices
1£312,510Lord Chief Justice
1.1£279,051
2£269,530Heads of High Court Divisions
3£256,304Lords Justices of Appeal
4£225,092 Judges
5£173,854Circuit Judges
6£139,469District Judges (including Family and Crown)
Subsequent increases of 2-6% were applied in 2024 following negotiations, raising lower-tier salaries such as district judges to approximately £143,000 by late 2024, with further adjustments for 2025-2026 published in July 2025. Part-time or deputy judges receive pro-rated fees or daily rates, such as £1,071.88 for deputy judges. Beyond salaries, judicial resources encompass court infrastructure, administrative support, and operational funding provided primarily through the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), which administers HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). The MoJ's total budget for 2025-26 stands at £13.5 billion, supporting courts, tribunals, prisons, and probation services, though courts and judiciary-specific allocations have faced historical cuts—capital funding for HMCTS dropped by around 70% in the early 2010s—leading to backlogs and maintenance issues. Recent measures include additional funding to increase judicial sitting days to 110,000 in 2025-26 from 108,000, aimed at reducing delays amid rising caseloads. Judges also receive pensions under the Judicial Pension Scheme, with contributions tied to salary levels, and limited allowances for judicial expenses, ensuring operational independence while funded by public resources.

Discipline, Removal, and Oversight

The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor share joint responsibility for addressing complaints regarding the personal misconduct of judicial office holders in England and Wales, excluding matters related to judicial decisions or sentencing, which are insulated to safeguard judicial independence. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), an independent component of the Judicial Office established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and operating since April 2006, supports this process by investigating complaints about behaviors such as bullying, offensive language, or misuse of judicial status. Upon receiving a , the JCIO conducts an initial review to determine validity; if proceeded with, it investigates facts, assesses whether occurred, and recommends sanctions to the and , who make the final determination. Possible sanctions include formal advice, warnings, required apologies, training, or, in severe cases, referral for removal proceedings, governed by the Judicial (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2023, which took effect on October 13, 2023, and streamlined procedures for efficiency while maintaining procedural fairness. In the JCIO's 2021-2022 , it processed over 1,500 complaints, upholding findings in approximately 5% of cases leading to sanctions, with most dismissed as relating to judicial rulings rather than personal conduct. Removal from office applies to judges holding tenure during good behavior, as established by the and reaffirmed in the , typically for incapacity or serious misbehavior rendering them unfit. For the Lord Chief Justice or heads of division, the Lord Chancellor may convene a after consultation; if it recommends removal, the acts on an presented by both Houses of . Lower-tier judicial office holders, such as circuit or district judges, may be removed by the Lord Chancellor on grounds of misbehavior or inability, following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and, where applicable, a recommendation, bypassing parliamentary to enable swifter action. No removals via parliamentary have occurred since 1830, underscoring the rarity and high threshold for such measures. Oversight emphasizes without undermining , with the JCIO providing transparency through published disciplinary statements and annual reports, while the Chancellor's role includes appointing investigating officials and ensuring procedural compliance. Reforms in 2023, informed by a 2021 , enhanced the system's responsiveness by allowing earlier sanctions in minor cases and clarifying JCIO's fact-finding authority, addressing prior criticisms of delays in processing. Parliamentary occurs via select committees, which review judicial conduct trends, though ultimate disciplinary authority remains with the executive-judicial partnership to prevent politicization.

Controversies and Criticisms

Judicial Activism and Overreach

Allegations of and overreach in the judiciary of England and Wales center on instances where courts, especially the , are accused of extending interpretations of law to shape policy or constrain executive and legislative actions, potentially encroaching on . Under the UK's , courts interpret statutes and review executive decisions for legality but cannot strike down primary legislation, though they may issue declarations of incompatibility under the or, pre-Brexit, disapply Acts conflicting with EU law. Critics, often from conservative think tanks, contend that expansive readings of constitutional principles or international obligations enable judges to substitute policy preferences for those of elected bodies, as cataloged in compilations of "problematic" cases involving expansions or procedural innovations. A foundational example is the Factortame litigation, particularly R v , ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2) 1 AC 603, where the issued an interim suspending provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 that restricted Spanish fishing quotas, pending an ECJ ruling on EU incompatibility. This marked the first domestic disapplication of an , enforcing EU law primacy via section 2(1) of the Act 1972, and was upheld as necessary for treaty obligations but later critiqued as initiating judicial deference to supranational norms over sovereign legislation. In contemporary constitutional disputes, R (Miller) v The Prime Minister UKSC 41 exemplified such tensions: the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Boris Johnson's advice to prorogue from 9 to 14 October 2019 unlawful, as it excessively disrupted parliamentary scrutiny of the executive during , violating unwritten principles of accountability and the . The judgment asserted of prerogative powers when they undermine constitutional fundamentals, without relying on specific statutes. Detractors viewed this as activist overreach into political timing, with media outlets aligned to the government decrying it as thwarting democratic mandate. More recently, in AAA (Syria) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 42, the Supreme Court held the government's asylum policy to deport migrants to Rwanda unlawful, citing substantial grounds for believing Rwanda's system risked indirect refoulement under ECHR Article 3 due to inadequate safeguards against return to persecution. Despite ministerial certifications and evidence of Rwandan improvements, the Court prioritized systemic deficiencies over policy intent, halting removals authorized under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. This prompted claims of judicial incompetence in assessing foreign risk and national security, influencing the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024's attempts to oust certain reviews and declare Rwanda safe by statute. Responses to perceived overreach include the Independent Review of Judicial Review (Faulks Review, March 2021), which examined expansion of review grounds and defiance—such as in Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal UKSC 22, where the disregarded statutory limits on appeals—but advocated targeted reforms like enhanced parliamentary scrutiny rather than wholesale curtailment. The and Courts Act 2022 legislatively overturned aspects of R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal UKSC 28, narrowing review of tribunal decisions, signaling legislative recalibration of judicial scope.

Sentencing Policies and Leniency Debates

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales, established under the , develops and issues guidelines to promote consistency in sentencing across courts. These guidelines require judges to assess offence seriousness based on harm and culpability, incorporating factors such as the offender's prior record, guilty plea, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances, while courts must follow them unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice. Revised guidelines effective from March 31, 2025, emphasize structured assessments for community and custodial sentences, aiming to reduce short-term imprisonment where alternatives like rehabilitation programs may better address risks. Debates on sentencing leniency have intensified amid public perceptions that penalties fail to deter crime adequately, with surveys indicating that around 70% of respondents in England and Wales view sentences as too lenient, often citing high-profile cases of suspended sentences for violent or repeat offences. The Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, operational since 1989, enables the Attorney General to refer perceived inadequate sentences to the Court of Appeal for review; in 2019, 93 cases were referred, resulting in 63 increases, though critics argue this underrepresents the volume of contested decisions given annual sentencing volumes exceeding 1 million. Empirical data shows immediate custodial sentences rose 8% to 77,000 in the year ending September 2024, reflecting policy shifts toward tougher penalties for serious crimes, yet prison overcrowding—reaching 88,000 inmates by late 2024—fuels arguments that leniency in non-custodial options contributes to reoffending rates hovering at 25% within a year of release. Criticisms often highlight discrepancies in guideline application, such as considerations of or in pre-sentence reports, which some contend introduce undue leniency and perceptions of a "two-tier" system favoring certain demographics, prompting Justice Secretary calls in 2025 for veto powers over new guidelines. The Sentencing Council has defended these provisions as neutral tools for contextualizing offender backgrounds without mandating reduced sentences, countering claims with evidence that overall sentencing severity has increased over decades, though public misperceptions—exacerbated by media focus on outliers—persist despite Committee inquiries affirming that informed publics align more closely with judicial rationale. Proposals in the 2024-2025 Independent Sentencing Review and Sentencing Bill seek to extend review timelines under the unduly lenient scheme to 56 days or a year for high-impact cases, aiming to balance deterrence with resource constraints while addressing through evidence-based alternatives rather than uniform harshness.

Claims of Bias and Institutional Issues

Claims of political bias in the judiciary of England and Wales have primarily emanated from conservative politicians and think tanks, focusing on perceived liberal leanings in rulings on , , and constitutional matters. In October 2025, Conservative leadership contender accused 35 judges of exhibiting "pro-migrant bias" in their interpretations of law, particularly in blocking deportation policies such as the scheme, arguing that such decisions prioritize foreign criminals over . Policy Exchange's Judicial Power Project has documented overreach in , contending that courts have expanded their role into policy areas like and migration, undermining through expansive readings of the , with specific cases such as the 2019 ruling exemplifying unelected judges substituting their judgment for elected government's. These criticisms attribute bias to the judiciary's demographic homogeneity—over 70% of senior judges educated at and from professional upper-middle-class backgrounds—fostering a aligned with establishment rather than broader public sentiment on issues like . Institutional issues compound these claims, including elitism in appointments that perpetuates class-based insularity. The , established under the to select solely on merit, has faced scrutiny for systemic barriers favoring those from private schools and universities, with only 7% of judges in 2023 from backgrounds despite comprising 88% of the population. A 2025 study revealed unconscious accent bias, where mock jurors rated speakers with working-class regional accents as 15-20% more likely to be guilty and less credible, suggesting judicial decision-making may disadvantage defendants from lower socioeconomic strata due to entrenched stereotypes. Critics argue this reflects causal realism in recruitment: meritocratic filters inadvertently select for cultural affinity with elite norms, leading to rulings disconnected from working-class experiences, as seen in lenient sentencing debates where harsher outcomes correlate with socioeconomic indicators uncontrolled for offense severity. Counterclaims of racial , often from academic surveys, rely on subjective perceptions rather than outcome data adjusted for confounders like offense type or prior convictions. A report, based on 373 lawyers' responses, asserted "institutional " with 95% believing racial influences processes, yet provided no causal linking judicial decisions to independent of behavioral factors; ethnic minorities comprise 14% of prisoners versus 13% of population, but disparities trace more to higher reported rates in certain communities than proven sentencing . Such reports, emanating from institutions with documented progressive orientations, have been critiqued for conflating systemic disparities with intentional , ignoring first-principles of causation. Diversity initiatives, mandating consideration of underrepresented groups since 2020, have increased ethnic minority judges to 10% by 2023 but raised merit concerns, with opponents citing potential eroding in . Overall, while the judiciary maintains formal independence via the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, institutional homogeneity—75% white male at High Court level in 2023—fuels perceptions of entrenched bias, with empirical reforms like expanded Judicial Appointments Commission scrutiny proposed to address without compromising competence. Conservative proposals for enhanced oversight, including potential removal powers for activist rulings, aim to realign with democratic accountability, though defenders warn of politicization risks.

Recent Developments and Reforms

Court Backlogs and Efficiency Measures

The backlog in the Crown Court of England and Wales reached a record high of 76,957 outstanding cases by the end of March 2025, marking an 11% increase from 69,021 cases at the end of March 2024. By September 2025, the backlog had risen further to nearly 80,000 cases, exacerbating delays with average wait times for trials extending beyond pre-pandemic levels. In magistrates' courts, 374,916 cases were received in the second quarter of 2025 alone, up 4% from the previous year, contributing to sustained pressure on lower-tier proceedings. These delays stem from multiple factors, including a surge in receipts post-COVID-19 restrictions, chronic understaffing, and infrastructural decay. Since 2010, 43% of courts have closed as part of cost-saving measures by (HMCTS), reducing capacity while caseloads grew, with staff reductions of 20% compounding administrative inefficiencies. The National Audit Office (NAO) has highlighted that productivity shortfalls, driven by crumbling estate conditions and chaotic administration, have prevented the system from matching receipt rates with disposals, leaving the backlog trajectory upward despite targeted interventions. To address these issues, the (MoJ) set a 2021 target to halve the Crown Court backlog by the mid-2020s, though progress has lagged, with ongoing efforts including the recruitment of additional judicial and administrative personnel. HMCTS implemented temporary "Nightingale" courts during the and has pursued digital reforms, such as online case management and remote hearings, culminating in the end of its core reform programme in March 2025 to streamline processes. Legislative adjustments, like extending magistrates' sentencing powers for certain offenses, aim to divert cases from the Crown Court, while the independent Criminal Courts Review in June 2025 recommended expanding judge-only trials and optimizing magistrates' usage to reduce complexity-driven delays. Despite these measures, the NAO notes that without sustained investment in infrastructure and staffing, efficiency gains remain insufficient to reverse the backlog's growth.

Diversity Initiatives and Statistics

The (JAC) implements a diversity strategy to encourage applications from underrepresented groups, including women, ethnic minorities, disabled individuals, and solicitors, through measures such as the Pre-Application Judicial programme, which provides training to prepare candidates, and a Targeted Outreach Programme that has supported over 500 candidates since 2020 by identifying eligible lawyers and offering tailored guidance. The JAC also applies an "equal merit" provision, prioritizing candidates from these groups when merit is tied, alongside reasonable adjustments for disabled applicants and monitoring of demographic data to refine processes. Complementing this, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary runs the Diversity Support Initiative, piloting efforts to recruit high-calibre lawyers from non-traditional backgrounds to senior roles like the , and the Judicial Outreach Mentoring Scheme, which pairs underrepresented practitioners—particularly women and Black, Asian, and minority ethnic lawyers—with serving judges to build judicial skills and awareness. The Judicial Diversity Forum, comprising the JAC, judiciary, and legal professions, coordinates annual reporting and actions, including a 2025-2027 communications strategy to address application drop-offs among diverse candidates at senior levels. As of 1 April 2025, women comprised 39% of judges, up from prior years but still below parity, with higher representation at 54% among judges and 57% among s; new appointments were 58% female. Ethnic minorities accounted for 12% of all judges (7% Asian, 1% ), matching and levels but lagging population demographics, with at 14% and new appointments at 23%; progress has been gradual since 2015 but stagnant for representation in recent reports. Disabled judges represented 10% overall (8% in , 15% in ), with first-time comprehensive self-reporting in 2025 enabling better tracking. Non-barrister backgrounds, primarily solicitors, held 31% of judgeships and 62% of posts, though solicitors comprised only 32% of recent JAC recommendations despite higher application rates.
CharacteristicCourt JudgesTribunal JudgesMagistratesAll Judges (Trend Note)
Female (%)395457Increasing since 2015
Ethnic Minority (%)121214Gradual rise, slow at senior levels
Disabled (%)815N/A10% overall; new reporting
The Lady Chief Justice has noted that while gains continue, overall diversity progress remains "too slow," prompting a new to 2030 focused on inclusion and barrier reduction, amid JAC showing ethnic minority recommendations aligning with eligibility pools (16%) but with higher success rates for targeted participants.

Sentencing Reviews and Legislative Impacts

The Sentencing Council for periodically reviews and updates its guidelines to ensure consistency and proportionality in sentencing, having issued over 180 offence-specific guidelines covering more than 300 commonly prosecuted offences as of January 2025. These reviews incorporate empirical data on sentencing outcomes, rates, and capacity pressures, aiming to balance punishment with rehabilitation and public protection. A landmark development was the Independent Sentencing Review launched in October 2024, tasked with re-evaluating the overall framework amid chronic overcrowding, which projected a population exceeding capacity by thousands without intervention. The review's May 2025 report recommended reforms estimated to reduce the population by approximately 9,800 through measures like enhanced community alternatives and adjusted custodial thresholds, emphasizing evidence-based reductions in average sentence lengths, which had risen from 18 months for indictable offences in 2013 to nearly 23 months in 2024 due to legislative expansions of maximum penalties. Legislative responses have directly shaped sentencing practices, with the Sentencing Act 2020 consolidating fragmented procedure laws into a single "Sentencing Code" effective from December 1, 2020, thereby simplifying judicial application and reducing errors from repealed statutes. This codification standardized processes for determining sentence types, such as custody, community orders, and fines, while preserving judicial discretion within guideline ranges, leading to more predictable outcomes in crown and magistrates' courts. Building on this, the Sentencing Bill introduced in September 2025 enacts key Independent Review recommendations, including a against sentences of 12 months or less—previously criticized for high —and expanded post-release supervision to curb reoffending, with projections of averting future capacity crises by prioritizing effective punishment over mere incarceration. These reforms have intersected with controversies over guideline equity, as proposed 2025 updates requiring pre-sentence reports for offenders from minority backgrounds or certain demographics faced suspension in March 2025 amid concerns of disparate treatment, prompting June 2025 legislation barring guidelines from referencing personal characteristics like ethnicity or sex to enforce uniform fairness. Empirical analysis post-2020 Act shows mixed impacts: while consistency improved, with fewer successful appeals on procedural grounds, overall custodial sentences increased due to stricter minimums for violent and sexual offences, contributing to a 30% rise in average time served from 12.7 months pre-2020 to higher figures by 2024. Critics from penal reform groups argue that without addressing root causes like probation underfunding, legislative tweaks risk perpetuating cycles of short-term incarceration with limited deterrent effect, though official evaluations prioritize data-driven adjustments over ideological preferences.

References

  1. https://www.judiciary.uk/
  2. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/lord-chief-justice/
  3. https://supremecourt.uk/about-the-court/role-of-the-supreme-court
  4. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/history-of-the-judiciary-in-england-and-wales/history-of-the-judiciary/
  5. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/
  6. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/courts-structure-0715.pdf
  7. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/
  8. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/international-visitors-guide-10a.pdf
  9. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jurisdictions/
  10. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jurisdiction
  11. https://supremecourt.uk/about-the-court
  12. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_191028_a541d2331c.pdf
  13. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
  14. https://academic.oup.com/book/50628/chapter/421300783
  15. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/speech-by-gross-lj-the-judicial-rle-today.pdf
  16. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf
  17. http://historyoflaw.co.uk/custom-courts-before-after-conquest/
  18. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5335&context=journal_articles
  19. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_law_01.shtml
  20. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232015297.pdf
  21. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13102&context=mlr
  22. https://magnacarta800th.com/articles/magna-carta-the-troubled-journey-to-an-independent-judiciary/
  23. https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Remarks-at-the-UWI-Open-Campus-Magna-Carta-Lecture-_Sir-Dennis-Byron_20150320.pdf
  24. https://users.ssc.wisc.edu/~rkeyser/?page_id=625
  25. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=clr
  26. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/laworder/court/overview/judicatureacts/
  27. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/laworder/court/overview/moderncourtsystem/
  28. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mr-jersey-lecture-may-2015.pdf
  29. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldconst/151/15110.htm
  30. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/judicialrole/overview/supremecourt/
  31. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/constitutional-reform/
  32. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldconst/75/7505.htm
  33. https://www.icdr.co.uk/news/judicial-independence-inquiry-parliamentary-report-finds-ministers-attacks-on-judges-threaten-the-constitution
  34. https://constitution-unit.com/2022/04/27/the-constitutional-reform-act-2005-led-to-greater-judicial-independence-politicians-and-parliament-must-continue-to-support-it/
  35. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06053/SN06053.pdf
  36. https://www.supremecourt.uk/uploads/separation_of_powers_worksheets_for_teachers_14634b8b9f.pdf
  37. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/independence/
  38. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/parliamentary-collections/act-of-settlement/
  39. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10854681.2024.2389694
  40. https://www.biicl.org/documents/689_bingham_centre_compendium.pdf
  41. https://www.ubplj.org/index.php/dlj/article/view/305/334
  42. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/687e2c6a8adf4250705c96a0/judicial-salaries-2025-2026.pdf
  43. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/judicial-salaries-and-fees-2025-to-2026
  44. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/72/section/4/data.html
  45. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/lcj_kenya_clc_120907.pdf
  46. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldconst/177/17703.htm
  47. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/contents
  48. https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-judiciary/
  49. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldconst/151/151.pdf
  50. https://www.judiciary.uk/how-the-law-works/judicial-review/
  51. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html
  52. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/3
  53. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/12/19/sammy-talalay-the-lord-chancellor-the-independence-of-the-judiciary-and-the-rule-of-law/
  54. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/institute-for-government.pdf
  55. https://supremecourt.uk/about-the-court/history
  56. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9536/CBP-9536.pdf
  57. https://supremecourt.uk/appointments-of-justices
  58. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/court-of-appeal-home/coa-sub/
  59. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/court-of-appeal-home/
  60. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/court-of-appeal-home/procedure-rules-for-the-court-of-appeal/
  61. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/coa-judges/
  62. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list/lord-and-lady-justices-of-appeal/
  63. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/court-structure/
  64. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/high-court-judges/
  65. https://www.judiciary.uk/structure-of-courts-and-tribunals-system/
  66. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/kings-bench-division/
  67. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/chancery-division/
  68. https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/kings-bench-division-of-the-high-court
  69. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/kings-bench-division/work-3/
  70. https://hcojusticeuk.org/courts-and-tribunals/kings-bench-division/courts-of-the-kings-bench-division/index.html
  71. https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/chancery-division-of-the-high-court
  72. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/chancery-division/chancery-division-regional-centres/
  73. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/chancery-division/the-work-of-the-chancery-division/
  74. https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/family-division-of-the-high-court
  75. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jurisdictions/family-jurisdiction/
  76. https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/family-law-courts/family-division-and-family-court/
  77. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_12d
  78. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court-structure/
  79. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/civil-jurisdiction/
  80. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/criminal-jurisdiction/
  81. https://www.gov.uk/courts
  82. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/magistrates/
  83. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/judges/district-judge-mags-ct/
  84. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/crown-court/
  85. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/courts-structure-0715.pdf
  86. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a799d63e5274a3864fd8587/fs-cj-new-courts.pdf
  87. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/county-court/
  88. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/about-the-jac/
  89. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/judicial-appointments-commission/about
  90. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/the-board-of-commissioners/the-commission/
  91. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/selection-panel-members/
  92. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/05/06/graham-gee-and-kate-malleson-judicial-appointments-diversity-and-the-equal-merit-provision/
  93. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/part/3/crossheading/appointment-of-judges
  94. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/guidance-on-the-application-process-2/
  95. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/jud-appts/
  96. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/am-i-eligible/
  97. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/eligibility-for-legally-qualified-candidates/
  98. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/
  99. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/statutory-consultation/
  100. https://www.judiciary.uk/the-revised-judicial-skills-and-abilities-framework-jsaf/
  101. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/thinking-about-becoming-a-judge/the-judicial-skills-and-abilities-framework/
  102. https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/framework-of-judicial-abilities-and-qualities/
  103. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/equality-and-diversity/diversity-and-equality-measures/equal-merit/
  104. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Diversity-Update-February-2025-Final.pdf
  105. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Diversity-Update-Sept-2020-PDF.pdf
  106. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/workforce-and-business/workforce-diversity/judges-and-non-legal-members-of-courts-and-tribunals-in-the-workforce/latest
  107. https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/progress-on-judicial-diversity-is-too-slow.html
  108. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-legal-professions-new-appointments-and-current-post-holders-2025-statistics--2
  109. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/targets-for-judicial-diversity-wrong-approach/59690.article
  110. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/25/lack-of-diversity-among-uk-senior-judiciary-is-serious-constitutional-issue
  111. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/notes/division/2
  112. https://www.judiciary.uk/dame-sue-carr-has-been-appointed-the-lord-chief-justice-of-england-and-wales-from-1-october-2023/
  113. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/how-the-judiciary-is-governed/
  114. https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-justice
  115. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a802baae5274a2e8ab4e982/work-with-sec-state-for-justice.pdf
  116. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/notes/division/7?view=plain
  117. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/part/2/2006-04-03/data.xht
  118. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/profile-pqbd/
  119. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/profile-chancellor-hc/
  120. https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/new-top-judges
  121. https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/new-president-of-the-family-division-appointment-the-rt-hon-sir-andrew-mcfarlane/
  122. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/circuit-judge/
  123. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/notes_on_the_jurisdiction_of_a_cj.pdf
  124. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/what-it-is-like-to-be-a-judge/
  125. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/recorder/
  126. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judges/district-judge-mags-ct/
  127. https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/representative-bodies/council-of-her-majestys-district-judges-magistrates-courts/
  128. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2024-statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-legal-professions-new-appointments-and-current-post-holders-2024-statistics
  129. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/magistrates/
  130. https://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/about-magistrates/
  131. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-career-paths/terms-of-service/salary/
  132. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/judicial-salaries-and-fees-2024-to-2025
  133. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66e830f5e4b40ed591881b73/Judicial_Salaries_2024_to_2025.pdf
  134. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/judicial-salary-rise-confirmed-after-pay-deal/5120874.article
  135. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/justice-spending-england-and-wales
  136. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn89656e01do
  137. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministry-of-justice-annual-report-and-accounts-2023-24/annual-report-and-accounts-2023-24-performance-html
  138. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/jud-conduct/
  139. https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/judicial-conduct-investigations-office/
  140. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/aboutus/
  141. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/MisconductandRecommendingSanctions
  142. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1005/made
  143. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/JCIOAnnual%2520Report21-22
  144. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/notes/division/10/2
  145. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/135/2006-04-03?view=plain
  146. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/018/en/05018x-f.htm
  147. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/judicial-disciplinary-system-public-consultation
  148. https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/2023ChangestotheJDS
  149. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/complaining-about-personal-conduct-of-judicial-office-holders/
  150. https://judicialpowerproject.org.uk/50-problematic-cases/
  151. https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/brexit-and-judicial-power/
  152. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/39890/how-the-myth-of-judicial-activism-has-taken-on-a-life-of-its-own
  153. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0093
  154. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10854681.2024.2395153
  155. https://consoc.org.uk/dont-stand-so-close-to-me-the-faulks-report-and-judicial-overreach/
  156. https://www.chemins-publics.org/articles/the-judicial-review-and-courts-act-2022-the-fascinating-case-of-the-supreme-court-decision-in-cart
  157. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-sentencing-council-for-england-and-wales
  158. https://www.gov.uk/how-sentences-are-worked-out
  159. https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/guidelines-explained
  160. https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/news-insight/does-the-public-understand-and-agree-with-criminal-sentences/
  161. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-05-25/debates/0F3065F8-FD25-417D-B287-FC98F384B652/UndulyLenientSentenceScheme
  162. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/crime-and-justice/37264/lord-chief-justice-why-accusations-that-judges-have-gone-soft-are-unfounded
  163. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-september-2024/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-september-2024-html
  164. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/680a2271532adcaaab3a273e/OMSQ_Q4_2024.pdf
  165. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-04-01/debates/D0E42452-F1BC-4399-98F5-CE672ED0D2AB/SentencingCouncilGuidelines
  166. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn848g3ll09o
  167. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gn9zqkp9o
  168. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmjust/305/report.html
  169. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-10-21/debates/590DBEF3-EA64-4317-A051-939CE275C66C/SentencingBill
  170. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2025-05-22a.1187.0
  171. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/10/06/jenrick-accuses-35-judges-of-pro-migrant-bias/
  172. https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/How-to-Address-the-Breakdown-of-Trust-Between-Government-and-Courts.pdf
  173. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2023-statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-legal-professions-new-appointments-and-current-post-holders-2023-statistics
  174. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/brits-still-associate-working-class-accents-with-criminal-behaviour-study-warns-of-bias
  175. https://www.courthousenews.com/how-accents-sway-the-scales-of-justice-study-reveals-bias-in-perceptions-of-guilt/
  176. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/18/judiciary-in-england-and-wales-institutionally-racist-says-report
  177. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/top-tories-demand-crackdown-on-unaccountable-judges/5124680.article
  178. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025
  179. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/court-waiting-times-undermine-justice
  180. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/sep/25/crown-court-england-wales-law-justice-politics
  181. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2025/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2025
  182. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/reducing-the-backlog-in-the-crown-court-1.pdf
  183. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/performance-tracker-2025/criminal-justice/criminal-courts
  184. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/court-reform/court-reform
  185. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/courts-reform-to-see-quicker-justice-for-victims-and-keeps-streets-safe
  186. https://www.emmlegal.com/news/leveson-review-2025-urgent-criminal-court-reform-in-the-uk/
  187. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/reducing-the-backlog-in-the-crown-court-summary.pdf
  188. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/equality-and-diversity/diversity-and-equality-measures/
  189. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-career-paths/appointments-diversity/
  190. https://www.[gov.uk](/page/Gov.uk)/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-legal-professions-new-appointments-and-current-post-holders-2025-statistics--2
  191. https://www.[judiciary](/page/Judiciary).uk/judicial-diversity-statistics-2025/
  192. https://judicialappointments.[gov.uk](/page/Gov.uk)/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Diversity-Update-February-2025-Final.pdf
  193. https://www.judiciary.uk/judicial-diversity-statistics-2025/
  194. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/w0anzjrb/sentencing-council-sentencing-review-evidence-09-01-2025-final.pdf
  195. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/html-publications/reconceptualising-the-effectiveness-of-sentencing-four-perspectives/
  196. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/independent-sentencing-review-2024-to-2025
  197. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/682d8d995ba51be7c0f45371/independent-sentencing-review-report-part_2.pdf
  198. https://howardleague.org/what-is-sentence-inflation/
  199. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17
  200. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/sentencing-code/
  201. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/circular-202003-sentencing-act-2020
  202. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sentencing-bill-2025
  203. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10332/
  204. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-to-ensure-fairness-for-all-in-court
  205. https://restorativejustice.org.uk/blog/rjc-responds-2024-2025-independent-sentencing-review
  206. https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/independent-sentencing-review
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.