As I write, the coroner in charge of the 7/7 inquests, Lady Justice Hallett, is about to deliver her findings. She has listened to five months of evidence of the most harrowing circumstances, with the bereaved family members of the victims in court, their suffering only too clear. It is universally agreed that she has conducted the inquests faultlessly, with compassion for the families, a commendable emphasis on clear language, and all reasonable speed. Many women lawyers in particular have felt proud of her position and her contribution to clarifying the situation, coming as it does in the wake of the death of Bin Laden.
Now that the two new appointments to the Supreme Court have been announced (see my earlier blog Law Lords http://lordsoftheblog.net/2011/04/20/law-lords/) I have been asked why there are not more women in the Supreme Court. At the moment there is the first, and only one, Lady Hale, distinguished family lawyer and former Law Commissioner, who has played an enormous part over decades in the teaching, reform and administration of family law. She spent much of her career as a teacher of law, which proves that academics can also become admired judges (Mr Justice Beatson is another example.) I don’t think there is gender discrimination in this field, especially with the Judicial Appointments Commission in place. Very very few women studied law 40-50 years ago, that is in the period when the women who are now senior enough for this sort of appointment were students. I was one of 8 in a class of 150 men, and this ratio was repeated in every law school. So there were small numbers to start with, and then along the years many women who had made a promising start at the Bar dropped out, often for childcare reasons. The hours at the Bar are long, there is a lot of travel, and every professional woman knows the cost of childcare and the difficulty of obtaining it, whether nanny or nursery. The Bar Nursery Association has been looking for premises for a nursery within the Inns of Court for years, without success. Now, however, half the law students are women, and I think the women judges will come through shortly in much greater numbers. There are 4 in the Court of Appeal.
While it is right to have a diverse judiciary, it should never be assumed that a litigant can only feel confident of justice from a judge who is of the same ethnicity or sex as him or her, or that a judge can only relate to a litigant if they are likewise the same. A judge must represent everybody and every perspective. There is a fascinating new book, Feminist Judgments, by Hunter, McGlynn and Rackley, which rewrites judgments in some famous cases as if they had been delivered by a woman judge instead of a man. Some of the results are different, but there is in this venture a risk of replacing one assumed stereotype by another. Judges are, or should be, for everybody.
“one of 8 in a class of 150 men.”
“Now, however, half the law students are women”
and a number of competent applicants for graduate solicitor’s articles are also turned away due to the excess of women applying.
There is a LIMIT of 50% on the number of women, I understand.
If the Women “lawyers” (ie Members)in the HofC are any guide, the quality of the judiciary will deteriorate.
I hope that is not to be the case.
One of the things that peeves me is equality laws especially according to Labour. When will they learn that quotas and preferred eligibility by sex or other is reverse discrimination. You’re either the right person for the job or not, by stating you’re the wrong sex to what we would like is discrimination.
In order to get proper equality we MUST do away with differentiation in anyway, shape or form. Yes that is difficult when someone feels they have been discriminated against but quotas is not the answer.
A Judge can only judge on his/her skill, knowledge and experience and two male judges may infact summise differently, it’s the luck of the draw unless we obtain robotic justice systems which would be wrong pure and simple.
Judges should be chosen for their ability to understand,knowledge, flexibility in law and fairness not on what is between their legs.
For decades the judicial system has been unfair on men in cases of divorce, I see no quotas being put forward for that.
In accepting true equality we state everyone is just human, not black, female, disabled or other, the moment we start dividing up into types we start division and possible discrimination.
Perhaps we should allow applications from behind a screen with a voice encoder?
Judges should be chosen for their ability to understand,knowledge, flexibility in law and fairness not on what is between their legs.
Yes, and we should also have an ethnic minority judge or more woman judges or what ever… is an entirely legitimate call.
the problem with the law is that from one person’s tongue, the word “academic” may seem
an entirely good thing to be, whereas the same word may be used to connote something quite worthless!
Now substitute the word “discriminate”.
How does a judge, or anyone, discriminate?!
I’m all in favour of a person who descriminates. Take Object d’arts for example! How would an antique dealer make a profit if he did not descriminate
/discriminate?
I get very irritated when I read about ‘positive’ discrimination. There cannot be anything positive about discrimination. That is an oxymoron.
And if there were few women in the profession at the time of requirement then it is very unlikely indeed that one will materialize who can cover all criteria for the post on offer. And since when did a Supreme Court Judge need to have female genitalia? What added experience will that offer. Something is either lawful or not. It doesn’t change because of the sex of the judge.
Not to mention the very real fact that women can be at their worst during menopause for stability, rational thinking and reliability. To pretend this is not the situation is naive and loses credibility. The right woman for the job should compete with the right man, that way the public cannot lose out. Can they?
And seven years to reach a conclusion regarding the atrocities on the tube and bus is what I would call expand a brief taken to the extreme. What other conclusion could there be, lawful killing, for example?
Yes, I know the details were covered in depth but that didn’t need seven years. We all knew what happened. Our people were attacked. Unlawfully.
Maude A good many men are adversely effected by the moon and are not even aware of it. Everybody else may be.
Carl’s remarks about “equality” are interesting. Labour’s policy on equality, like its policy on human rights is very much in keeping with International Law, ie the UN and its declarations. I agree that they may seem controversial, but are proper.
The history of Equality (and the equal sign itself) goes back a long way.
In order to get proper equality we MUST do away with differentiation in anyway, shape or form.
Is this remark for example a mathematical,or a political one, taken in isolation, considering our recently acquired knowledge (since Descartes) of differentiation and integration?!!
The French revolutions were based very much on the importance of Equality, enshrined for ever in their motto of
“Liberté, Egalité,Fraternité”!
I also wonder about the emphasis on these three concepts in different countries. Liberty for the USA; Equality for the French,
and Comradeship for the Russians, although if you take Fraternité as Brotherhood….. oh Hell!!!
@Twm O’r Nant:
Equality is and should be based on ‘equality of ability’ or ‘aptitude.’ It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is male/female or any other side track being imposed on the human race today. Equality of ability has to include the entire spectrum of capabilities of the party being judged suitable for position. And political correctness, in respect of discriminating between one candidate over another for reasons not connected to the position or required for the position, is frankly ridiculous. It will not enhance the human race in any shape or form, in fact the reverse will be inevitable.
And the ‘moon’ is not the reason many women have difficulties of balance in middle age, or indeed at any other time of life, it is the vacillation of hormones. This is a natural process and not one to be shunned or hidden because of prejudice or fear of repugnance. Unless women begin to appreciate their true self and cut according to their cloth, rather than perpetually trying to emulate the male of the species, they will never be accepted as equals in intellect or aptitude.
The argument stops with the concept of equality itself. It is very simple, no individual can be treated more than equal. You cannot be more equal or less equal. Anything other is not equality.
And what on earth does the UN have to do with it? When did that organization create any life form?
Yes! Yes! Very interesting but I was reading what a clinical psychologist wrote in a piece called “Understanding the Difference between Men and Women”. In his preamble he says “Men usually have greater upper body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities.” Now I must take exception to this!
The women that post editorial on this blog are exceptionally thick skinned.
Ref: Understanding the Difference between Men and Women
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/DifferencesMenWomen.htm
@Senex: A lot of men may agree with you!
However, clinical psychologists, in general, do not have a great deal of insight regarding the needs of the human psyche, either of the male or the female. Even though they profess to do so.
Here is an analogy.
You have two beautiful horses. They can both run a race and they are equal in their ability to win that race if trained to do so.
However, one is bred for the flat, the other for dressage. Although the dressage can race and beat the flat racer, the sense of fulfillment and satisfaction is missing from that win.
Yet, when the dressage is preened and plaited, and it moves in perfect harmony with its well groomed rider, it oozes a sense of itself as a beautiful, gracious and complete creature. Satisfied.
The flat, on the other hand, would be mortified by the perception of a limited life of dressage.
You’re a brave soul! Comparing women to horses?
@Senex:
Or, it could be you are a ‘sad soul,’ unable to define the exquisite beauty of a thoroughbred horse.