header-logo header-logo

Spot the judge

21 June 2024 / John Gould
Categories: Opinion , Rule of law
printer mail-detail
177934
By diluting the judicial title, we risk interfering with the administration of justice, argues John Gould

Until it was abolished by the Crime and Courts Act 2013, scandalising the judiciary was a criminal offence intended to maintain public confidence in judges and the administration of justice. Public confidence is not to be taken for granted. Research published in 2019 by the Sentencing Council suggested that only around half of people surveyed thought that the criminal justice system was effective or fair. Judges are sometimes subjected to unconstitutional and unwarranted attack, such as the notorious newspaper headline describing three judges as ‘enemies of the people’ in 2016, but a more subtle undermining of the special perception of judges may be developing, arising from the presentation of individuals as ‘judges’ who are not.

It has long been accepted that for the administration of justice to operate successfully, the right to use the title ‘solicitor’ or ‘barrister’ must only be used by people who are actually solicitors or barristers. It is, for example, an offence under s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll