Share it
Following confusion about and discrepancies over the titles of the Justices of the UK Supreme Court (namely the fact that legal counsel are unsure about how to address the Justices, and that John Dyson, the only newly appointed Justice since the creation of the UKSC, does not have the title of “Lord”), Buckingham Palace has signed a warrant declaring that every Justice of the UKSC will in future be given the title of Lord or Lady.
The decision also provides that the wives of male Justices can be given a title. However, civil partners and the husbands of female justices will not have the same right. This has caused some controversy, with many critics slamming the move as “clear discrimination“.
The Court has defended the decision, saying that it will reduce confusion. However, this certainly could be seen as a step in the wrong direction for the Court that many hoped would mark the modernisation of the top level of the British judicial system.
1 comment
James Wilson said:
20/01/2011 at 22:36
I wrote about this for Halsbury’s Law Exchange, published here:
http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/when-is-a-lord-not-a-lord/
At the time I wasn’t aware of the discrimination point about wives of Justices obtaining titles but husbands or partners not. Frankly that makes no sense. It reinforces the conclusion I had already reached – that the chopping and changing makes the court look like a work in progress, not a carefully crafted new constitutional institution.
Though I was not in favour of the court being set up in the first place, now we have it I am certainly in favour of it being done properly. The question of judges’ titles should have been done properly from the start.