Public perceptions matter, and diluting the judicial title undermines the administration of justice, writes John Gould, senior partner at Russell-Cooke, in this week’s NLJ
That is so whether it be judicial slips on impartiality, a blurring of the boundaries around ‘judicial office’ or direct attacks on judges by the media or politicians.
Gould expresses particular concern about retired judges who rely on the prestige of their previous role as standing to opine in the media beyond their subject of expertise.
He writes: ‘When, however, their previous status is used to give authority to views largely unrelated to their judicial experience, their views are likely to damage the perception of those who actually hold offices and raise the possibility that beneath the serene surface, those sitting judges hold partisan views and opinions.’
Gould also highlights his concerns about a Sikh court―a religious court which provides mediation and arbitration, but which has ‘judges’ and ‘magistrates’ and ‘clothes itself in the panoply of the English courts’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
