Talk:Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Plural 2 Reform 3 Need for a peerage 4 Definite article 5 Ranking of judges 6 First chief justice

[edit] Plural

Is the plural really Lord Chief Justices? Should, like Attorneys General and Surgeons General, it be be Lords Chief Justice?

[edit] Reform

At the moment the entry is misleading in that it does not properly explain what happened between the coming into force of the Judicature Act 1873 on 1st November 1875 and the abolition of the Common Pleas and Exchequer divisions of the High Court on 16 December 1880.

In the interim there was not a single Lord Chief Justice -- in that Cockburn CJ and Kelly B retained their positions alongside Lord Coleridge (Chief Justice of the Common Pleas) and their posts were not abolished until the abolition of their divisions which happened after their death.

Francis Davey 20:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Need for a peerage

In order to hold this office you have to be a peer, at least one person, William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield was created a peer so that he could fill this role. Should we be listing the names with the peerage title or without?

This is not correct - Murray held the post from 1756, and only was made Earl of Mansfield in 1776. His predecessor, Sir Dudley Ryder, held the post for two years without ever becoming a peer. Nor did his predecessor, Sir William Lee...in the 18th century, a peerage does not seem to have been a requirement for this office. In fact, even in the nineteenth century we see that Sir Alexander Cockburn was never made a peer. This suggests that while a peerage is common for this post, it is not a requirement. john k 06:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

6 months later...I was wrong about Mansfield, who was made Baron Mansfield in 1756. But my larger point still stands. john k 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definite article

"Presently the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is the Lord Phillips of Worth Maltravers, who suceeded Lord Woolf on October 1, 2005." Shouldn't it be "...is Lord Phillips of Worth Maltravers..."? Apokrif 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He's a substantive peer so the use of the definitive article is formally correct. - Chrism 15:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking of judges

"he or she is now the head of the judiciary in England and Wales"

So the Lord Chief Justice is the highest judge, but the opinions s/he gives as a member of the Court of Appeal or High Court can be disputed in front of the Law Lords, who are junior to him/her ? Apokrif 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the case that the LCJ is now the head of the judiciary in England and Wales and I understand why you are confused; it would appear that the Law Lords are junior to him. This is not really the case.

The House of Lords is the court of last resort in England and Wales (it does have a UK wide remit – but this is not relevant here). Therefore, the judgement of the House of Lords is binding on all lower courts, i.e. the decisions of the Court of Appeal and below. This is irrespective of whether the LCJ is sitting in any of these courts.

The judges of the House of Lords are known as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and there are 12 of them. The LCJ is not more senior than the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and he is not head of the judicial function of the House of Lords (that is the job of the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary) he is head of the Courts of England and Wales which are lower in rank than the House of Lords. The remit of the LCJ does not therefore include the judicial business of the House of Lords.

The office of LCJ ranks below that of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, as it is not a requirement of the post to be a member of the House of Lords. Traditionally, the senior members of the Judiciary (in all of the jurisdictions in the UK) were ennobled and became members of the House of Lords on or shortly after appointment to their judicial office; anyone who is a member of the House of Lords, and who also holds high judicial office, is entitled to vote on the judicial business of the House. This ennoblement gives the LCJ the same rank as the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and an entitlement to vote in the final court of appeal if he so chooses.

The LCJ, when sitting in the House of Lords, is not there as the ‘Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales’ and does not have any extra powers, he is there by virtue of the fact that he also happens to be a Lord. When the votes are counted, he has one vote, as do Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and any other members of the Lords who are eligible by holding high judicial office.

The role of the LCJ is more clearly defined when one looks at the new position of the Supreme Court of the UK. All of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary will automatically become the new Lord Justices of the Supreme Court (or whatever title they might choose). On formation of the new court, whomever happens to be the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary will becomes the President of the Court and whomever is the second senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary will become the Deputy President of the Court. The LCJ does not figure in this new court, as he is not a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

Hope this helps. CMC 23:10, 21 September 2006

Thanks. Actually I'd like to know whether an appointment to the office of LCJ or MR is seen as a promotion for a low lord. Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers says that "In early 1999 he was made a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and in 2000 succeeded Lord Woolf as Master of the Rolls", which would imply that MR (and hence LCJ) is a more prestigious position than Law lord (and then it would be logical that LCJ and MR are part of the new UK Supreme Court, i.e. that the most prestigious offices belong to the highest court)

"The office of LCJ ranks below that of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" Master of the Rolls says: "The Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England, known as the Master of the Rolls, is the third most senior judge of England, the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain traditionally being first and the Lord Chief Justice second.": does this means that LCJ>Law Lord, or that this sentence does not include Law lords in the British/English judges it refers to ?

Also I read in The Lawyer April 24, 2000 (Joshua Rozenberg): "The senior Law Lord used to be the one who'd been in the post the longest[...]Lord Bingham has never sat as a Law Lord. Why has he leapfrogged the others?" As Lord Bingham was LCJ before becoming Senior Law Lord, if LCJ is one of the highest judicial positions, it should be no wonder if he is appointed Senior Law Lord (i.e. only 1 or 2 steps higher in the hierarchy)

Or perhaps the Lords of appeal in ordinary have a higher position as far as purely legal work is concerned, whereas the LCJ and MR rank lower from the judiciary point of view but have higher administrative/managerial attributions?

Apokrif 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First chief justice

The list of chief justices gives Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale as the first one, from 1268-1269. But he was born in 1250, making him 18 or 19. Should this actually read Robert de Brus, 5th Lord of Annandale, who was already already a judge by then? Richard75 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)