This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/mar/05/lord-neuberger-interview-senior-judge

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Britain's most senior judge takes aim at gender imbalance Britain's most senior judge takes aim at gender imbalance
(7 months later)
The stereotypical image of judges as male and white may be so deeply entrenched that there could be an "unconscious bias" against women, the United Kingdom's most senior judge has suggested.The stereotypical image of judges as male and white may be so deeply entrenched that there could be an "unconscious bias" against women, the United Kingdom's most senior judge has suggested.
Lord Neuberger, who was formerly master of the rolls, head of the civil courts, accepts there is a problem with diversity in the higher judiciary and is keen to address the imbalance.Lord Neuberger, who was formerly master of the rolls, head of the civil courts, accepts there is a problem with diversity in the higher judiciary and is keen to address the imbalance.
Last month the UK supreme court appointed three new justices – as its judges are known – to bring it up to its full complement of 12. All three – Lord Justice Hughes, Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Hodge – are men; there is only one women, Lady Hale, on the court. In addition, fewer women applied to be QCs in the latest round of appointments.Last month the UK supreme court appointed three new justices – as its judges are known – to bring it up to its full complement of 12. All three – Lord Justice Hughes, Lord Justice Toulson and Lord Hodge – are men; there is only one women, Lady Hale, on the court. In addition, fewer women applied to be QCs in the latest round of appointments.
Neuberger does not favour positive discrimination. "The British people are entitled to have the best judges they can get," he said, "… and I think it's slightly patronising in our field to have a special place for women."Neuberger does not favour positive discrimination. "The British people are entitled to have the best judges they can get," he said, "… and I think it's slightly patronising in our field to have a special place for women."
But he raised the question of whether there is an unacknowledged "subconscious bias" against appointing women judges. "I have no doubt that in all of the committees I have sat on there's a positive, conscious desire to want to appoint [more women].But he raised the question of whether there is an unacknowledged "subconscious bias" against appointing women judges. "I have no doubt that in all of the committees I have sat on there's a positive, conscious desire to want to appoint [more women].
"I'm not saying there is a subconscious bias … what worries me is that we may all be suffering from a subconscious bias which by definition may be difficult to show or to prove.""I'm not saying there is a subconscious bias … what worries me is that we may all be suffering from a subconscious bias which by definition may be difficult to show or to prove."
It might, he suggested, be a subconscious expectation of "having an image of a judge with … male-type qualities and a male appearance. I'm not saying we do have that but there's a risk that we do and its difficult to know how to cater for it."It might, he suggested, be a subconscious expectation of "having an image of a judge with … male-type qualities and a male appearance. I'm not saying we do have that but there's a risk that we do and its difficult to know how to cater for it."
Neuberger believes appointing more part-time judges, even on the supreme court, may help encourage the promotion of women. "Women are much more likely to think I'm not good enough … We should think of going to women … and encouraging them to be to apply for promotion. That's one thing we can do.Neuberger believes appointing more part-time judges, even on the supreme court, may help encourage the promotion of women. "Women are much more likely to think I'm not good enough … We should think of going to women … and encouraging them to be to apply for promotion. That's one thing we can do.
"We can also look at academics. There are more women in the academic world. It's easier to manage life in the academic world with family commitments.""We can also look at academics. There are more women in the academic world. It's easier to manage life in the academic world with family commitments."
Pressure in the City and elsewhere was subtle, he said. "It's more difficult for men to take time off than women to look after the children. It will be regarded as wimpy for the man to do it and then the woman is the one whose career suffers because she can get time off and then she has her card marked.Pressure in the City and elsewhere was subtle, he said. "It's more difficult for men to take time off than women to look after the children. It will be regarded as wimpy for the man to do it and then the woman is the one whose career suffers because she can get time off and then she has her card marked.
"I don't pretend this will end up with us having 50% women in the judiciary within 10 years. I think it reflects society, largely. But we can be doing things … The majority [of judges] are male and white and public school and that reflects society and law firms and the bar.""I don't pretend this will end up with us having 50% women in the judiciary within 10 years. I think it reflects society, largely. But we can be doing things … The majority [of judges] are male and white and public school and that reflects society and law firms and the bar."
On the austerity cuts to legal aid which are to come into effect from next month, Neuberger has expressed concern that "the quality of justice will be in danger of being devalued". He told The Guardian: "We all know the enormous financial pressures on the government. [It] has to make … brutal and hard decisions. I'm not saying the rule of law is going to fall to pieces but I do think we have to be careful.On the austerity cuts to legal aid which are to come into effect from next month, Neuberger has expressed concern that "the quality of justice will be in danger of being devalued". He told The Guardian: "We all know the enormous financial pressures on the government. [It] has to make … brutal and hard decisions. I'm not saying the rule of law is going to fall to pieces but I do think we have to be careful.
"And if you start cutting legal aid you start cutting people off from justice … affecting their rights. And that's dangerous. You either have people who are very angry with government and lose trust in the government … or you get them taking the law into their own hands."And if you start cutting legal aid you start cutting people off from justice … affecting their rights. And that's dangerous. You either have people who are very angry with government and lose trust in the government … or you get them taking the law into their own hands.
"Conscientious judges and court staff will take up a lot more time dealing with [self-represented litigants], explaining how to put in a claim or to deal with a document. That's all going cost the court system money and time. [Either] there's a real risk the court system will become less efficient, while other litigants will have to wait longer, or it's going to cost more, in which case the savings on legal aid may be dissipated to some extent by the [increased costs of running the courts].""Conscientious judges and court staff will take up a lot more time dealing with [self-represented litigants], explaining how to put in a claim or to deal with a document. That's all going cost the court system money and time. [Either] there's a real risk the court system will become less efficient, while other litigants will have to wait longer, or it's going to cost more, in which case the savings on legal aid may be dissipated to some extent by the [increased costs of running the courts]."
Secret courts, which the justice and security bill will expand, create a sense of unease on the benches, Neuberger said. "Any judge will be concerned, be uncomfortable about going into a closed [material procedure] hearing [where there is evidence] one side has given and the other side can't see.Secret courts, which the justice and security bill will expand, create a sense of unease on the benches, Neuberger said. "Any judge will be concerned, be uncomfortable about going into a closed [material procedure] hearing [where there is evidence] one side has given and the other side can't see.
"You are looking at evidence that one of the parties never sees. It's profoundly uncomfortable … [but] it is the classic example of the immovable object being struck by the irresistible force."You are looking at evidence that one of the parties never sees. It's profoundly uncomfortable … [but] it is the classic example of the immovable object being struck by the irresistible force.
"If the government has evidence that is central to its case which it can't let the other party see, it has two options. One is the other party wins and perhaps they should never have done so. The other possibility [is] the judge may decide the case on evidence [which the other side can't see]. The other party may lose without ever knowing why they have lost it."If the government has evidence that is central to its case which it can't let the other party see, it has two options. One is the other party wins and perhaps they should never have done so. The other possibility [is] the judge may decide the case on evidence [which the other side can't see]. The other party may lose without ever knowing why they have lost it.
"It is completely contrary to the whole principle on which our trial system works. It's a real problem … One point where I'm a bit concerned is who decides whether evidence is so essential that the government should be allowed use it without showing the other side." It should be the judge, Neuberger said."It is completely contrary to the whole principle on which our trial system works. It's a real problem … One point where I'm a bit concerned is who decides whether evidence is so essential that the government should be allowed use it without showing the other side." It should be the judge, Neuberger said.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.