Category Archives: judicial appointments

LADY HALE, PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND FEMINIST ACTIVIST

LADY HALE, PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND FEMINIST ACTIVIST

Many lawyers and constitutional commentators have pointed out that Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, who delivered the Judgment in the proroguing of Parliament case, and her colleagues in the Supreme Court, invented a completely new basis on which “Proceedings in Parliament” would be dealt with by the courts.  They completely ignored the legally and constitutionally correctly traditional Judgment of the High Court.  
I thought however that it was worth highlighting Lady Hale’s comments that were reported approvingly in the Sunday Times on September 29th under the headline of “Take the right partner to be supreme at law” by Nicholas Hellen.  He writes about Lady Hale and her political views from a speech that she made at the launch of “Cambridge Women in Law” in which he says that she “spent an hour dispensing her thoughts on how women can succeed in the male dominated world of the judiciary”. 
The article reports Lady Hale as saying:- “When I came to Cambridge, I knew it was a privilege.  I bet every woman in this room knew it was a privilege to be here.  But I was surrounded by men who thought they were entitled to be here.  And that is one of the things that we still have to go on fighting against.  The male sense of entitlement.”
She spoke of loosening the grip of the “quadrangle-to-quadrangle-to-quadrangle boys”.  A reference to a man who goes from a public school to Oxbridge and then to the Inns of Court “we haven’t got the history of people of our sex doing the job for generation after generation”, she told the audience. 
Hale said:- “Feminism is believing in equality, equality for women and the validity of women’s experiences.  That is how I define feminism. 
Men can be feminists too and there are lots of them and there are loads of women who aren’t.  Those are probably the people that we most have to contend with rather than men because they are in many ways the real problem rather than men.”
She also spoke of sometimes lacking in confidence, and talked of how Gina Miller, the businesswoman and campaigner who brought the case to the Supreme Court, dressed to help give her the confidence to fend off “people’s bigoted assumptions”. 
Hale suggested that this was a metaphor, “throwing light on this problem that women generally lack confidence”. 
The article finishes by saying that Lady Hale has asked Mary Arden, who has joined the Supreme Court:- “I have asked her please, please when I retire, would she keep up the good work”. 
Whatever you think of Lady Hale’s views, the one certainty it seems to me is that she is demonstrating yet again where on the spectrum her political values come from.  So she is vividly demonstrating that the Blairite creation of the Supreme Court has worked well from its creator’s point of view in entrenching Blairism into the Constitution.  It also vividly demonstrates the general effectiveness of the Left’s “Long March through the Institutions”. 
What do you think? 

The purpose of the creation of the ‘Supreme Court’ was to entrench Blairism into the Constitution

So now we have had the decision of the “Supreme Court” on Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament.  In which, on very thin grounds, the Supreme Court has dismissed one of the key provisions in our Constitution.  
This is Article 9 in the Bill of Rights which says as follows (the significant bits of which I have underlined):-
“Bill of Rights1688 CHAPTER 2 1 William and Mary Session 2:-
“…..That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament….”
To understand why the “Supreme Court” has ruled in this way it is necessary to consider its purpose. 
The purpose behind the creation of both the Judicial Appointments Commission & Supreme Court was to entrench Blairism into the UK’s Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court are of course also appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission which was specifically and openly set up by Tony Blair and his friend Lord Irvine, his Lord Chancellor, to, as Lord Irvine, put it to “ensure that nobody with Reactionary Views can be appointed or promoted” as a Judge. 
In order to achieve this, the Judicial Appointments Commission has made it clear that, in order to get appointed or promoted as a Judge, you must “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity”.  This of course means that every appointment is likely to be of a Left-wing, Multiculturalist, Internationalist, Europhile.
It was as part of this drive that the now Lord Justice Hickinbottom when he was the “Judicial Lead for Diversity” gleefully told the solicitors Law Society Gazette that he suggested “Creating a judicial career fast-track (to) help improve diversity on the bench”
Ever since 2004 the Judicial Appointments Commission has continued to appoint and to promote wherever possible only those who are multi-culturalist activists.
The effect of this can easily be seen if you look at the backgrounds of the eleven Supreme Court “Justices”, as reported in The Slog, as follows:-
“Lady Brenda Hale (Chair) is a lifetime academic and former Law Professor who went straight into being a Judge with no history in commercial law at all. She is a feminist, a great believer in diversity, and a lifelong liberal. I would be amazed if she voted any other way than Remain.
Lord Robert Reed (Deputy) is a Scot who also sits on the EU’s European Court of Human Rights. He was an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe Joint Initiative with Turkey. No prizes for guessing where Rabbie’s sympathies lie.
Lord Brian Kerr is the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and the first Catholic ever appointed to that post. In 2014, he had this to say in a lengthy interview:
“The Law has changed enormously since the enactment of the Human Rights Act. The central point about the Act is that it has given judges free access to the rich vein of jurisprudence that is provided by the Strasbourg Court…..we now have the ability to draw on jurisprudence from all over the Council of Europe on matters that critically affect the balance of power between the citizen and the state and I think that that can only be a good thing.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Lord Nicholas Wilson is left of centre and on the record as saying, ““In pursuit of its economic policy, the UK government has recently felt the need to dismantle much of our welfare state, namely social security and the National Health Service.” He is a passionate supporter of the ECHR in Strasbourg. The activist site Divorce & the City is currently preparing to impeach Lord Wilson for alleged corruption and ‘pro State’ bias. He is, reputedly, not a fan of Boris Johnson or Brexit.
Lord Robert Carnwath is an unknown quantity who appears never to have expressed an opinion about anything, except he sits on the advisory council of the English School in Poland.
Lord Patrick Hodge is another Scot. He was a civil servant in the 1970s, and then Counsel to the Department of Energy from 1989 to 1991, and to the Inland Revenue from 1991 to 1996. Ergo, chummy with the unelected State, 99.99% of whom are anti-Brexit. I’d imagine he’s also a wow at parties.
Lady Jill Black is unique in the Supreme Court in not having been to Oxbridge. You can see from this just how inclusive the Court is, and thus totally in touch with the average person.
Lord David Lloyd-Jones is another scholar who wound up a judge. He was a Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge from 1975 to 1991. From 1999 to 2005, he was a visiting professor at City University, London, and was then put onto The Bench. He has always specialised in international  and EU law. Only two months ago, in a Supreme Court hearing involving Kuoni Travel, Lloyd-Jones ruled that EU Law had primacy in the case. He gave the judgement in Welsh, which was a first. Highly unlikely to have voted to leave a Union in whose law he specialises, one could reasonably argue.
Lady Mary Arden became a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2011, and sits as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg blah blah yawn etc. In 2015 she published a book about the impact of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the domestic law of the UK. In his preface to the book, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales noted:
Not a Leaver then, we suspect. This is all getting terribly predictable, isn’t it?
Lord David Kitchin coxed the team that won the 1975 Boat Race for Cambridge. More pertinently, he has for many years been a strong advocate of more harmonisation of the Law between EU jurisdictions. In May this year, he gave an interview offering the following opinion in relation to patent law, in which he is a specialist:
“The situation is improving and that is because there is now much more discussion and communication between judges in different countries. Judges now meet regularly to discuss these and other difficult issues. We consider each other’s judgments; all of us attach importance to the decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal and the Enlarged Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Convention….there might not be jurisdiction to make references to the EU Court of Justice in these cases, or any cases after Brexit.”
And so this would be a bad thing, wouldn’t i? Get real: Lord Kitchin is a Good European who lectures about legal alignment in the EU.
Lord Philip Sales really is a case of leaving the best until last. Sales has had something of a meteoric rise: he is the youngest of the Supreme Court judges, and was a practising barrister at 11 King’s Bench Walk – according to The Guardian ‘a network of old boys and cronies’ that enabled him to be appointed First Counsel at the Treasury…a department of State with a long and grubby history of undying support for the EU. The recommendation that he be appointed came from Lord Irvine and Tony Blair’s old chambers.
Philip Sales is New Labour through and through. In 2016, he was a member of the Court of Appeal which ruled that 130,000 Labour members who joined the party after 12 January 2016 would not be able to vote in the leadership contest. This overruled the previous High Court decision to allow the 130,000 disenfranchised Labour Party members to vote in the 2016 Labour Party leadership election. In short, it was a bid by the Blairites to keep Corbyn out.
Finally, he was one of the three judges forming the High Court in proceedings concerning the use of the royal prerogative for the issue of notification in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. His role in this judgment meant that he appeared in an infamous front-cover of the Daily Mail  – Enemies of the People – as a solid-gold Remainer.”
(The original of this useful article can be found here >>> https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/ )
It is also being said that many of the 11 “Justices” are in receipt of salaries from the EU.  If true then this is a very serious scandal!
I have noticed that Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Conservatives are grumbling about the decision of the Supreme Court, but they have only their own Party to blame! 
It’s no use Conservative MPs now complaining about the same europhile multiculturalists whom their Party had appointed to the Supreme Court making Europhile Multiculturalist decisions.
The Conservatives have had nearly 10 years in power to change the Judicial Appointments system but they have chosen not to do so!

BREXIT CASE UPDATE

 

BREXIT CASE UPDATE

Since issuing the English Democrats’ case (claiming a Declaration that the UK left the EU on the expiry of our Notice on the 29th March 2019), the Administrative Court has not shown itself to be either as speedy or efficient at dealing with the case. 

This is despite my having made an initial Application to have the case expedited. This resulted in the Government Legal Department undertaking to provide their Grounds of Resistance by just before Easter on the 17th April  (usually they get a full 21 days).  Mr Justice Supperstone made an Order which was emailed to me confirming that in these circumstances he was not going to order the Government Legal Department to serve their Grounds of Resistance any sooner. 
Matters then did not progress as speedily as we would all have hoped.  So I then made a further Application for the case to be expedited, but received no indication as to when any hearing was going to occur.  So after waiting for almost another two months I went off on holiday for two weeks starting on the evening of Friday, 14th June. 
Until Tuesday, 25th June we had heard nothing further from the Court.  Although I am sole practitioner and most sole practitioners going on holiday simply close their office, I do have my assistant come in to check the post regularly and, of course, to answer any telephone calls, etc. 
I was therefore dismayed to hear that a decision had been made, the image of which I am showing on this blog, not only refusing to give Permission, which would be strange enough, given Sir Richard Aitkin’s, the retired Court of Appeal Judge’s public comment that this case is “strongly arguable”, which is well above the merely “arguable” threshold that is supposed to guarantee permission to Judicially Review.  But this Order went much further than that and certified on the flimsiest of grounds that our case was “Totally Without Merit”. This is a shorthand for a new procedure introduced in order to make things as difficult as possible for immigration cases, where the Administrative Court has been inundated with legally unmeritorious applications by litigants in person. 
If a case is certified as being Totally Without Merit, then the consequence is that an application to Appeal to the Court of Appeal has to be made within 7 days of deemed service. 
As you can see from the Court’s covering letter, the letter was purportedly sent out on Wednesday, 19th June and therefore deemed served on Friday, 21st.  In fact it had not arrived on Friday, 21stas my post was fully opened on that day. 
It is possible that it arrived on the 22ndor on Monday, 24th, as it was opened when my assistant next went into the office on Tuesday, 25th. 
To catch me out it needed me to go away for two weeks or more.  This holiday was the first time that I have done so for over 20 years!
The Order was then faxed that morning to our barrister, Francis Hoar, and work commenced to get this Application issued on or before the last date for issuing it, which was Friday, 28th. 
Francis did a superb job and got the Application ready for us to be able to issue it, despite my still being away on holiday. 
If my personal practice had not been as thorough and as conscientious as it is, I think it is likely that I would have returned from holiday to find that we had already missed the deadline. 
Whenever I think about this situation I find it hard to believe that this “coincidence” is purely accidental.  This was the one opportunity in the whole of the last two months in which we could lose this case provided the paperwork was sent when it was, as explained above. 
Furthermore it is odd that the less important Order of Mr Justice Supperstone’s was emailed but this much more important Order was only posted. Nor were we given any advance warning.  I do not think I will ever be able to prove the attempted set up that seems to have happened here, but fortunately we have managed to keep the case on track by getting the Application in on time.
 If my suspicions are right it is a very sad reflection on the state of “justice” in this country which has now become so politicised that we seem to have lost the “Rule of Law” which was the cornerstone of England’s hard won and hard fought ancient Constitution.
A further matter emerged when there was the easily made confusion between two Mr Justice Spencers.  The signature on the Order looks like Mr Justice Martin Spencer, but it turns out on very close inspection of the documentation to be that of Mr Justice Robin Spencer aka Sir Robin Spencer.  
Inspection of the Facebook profile and Twitter account of Mr Justice Martin Spencer revealed that he was an outspoken Remainer. As it was put in a legal analysis:-

 

18. On the said Twitter site appear the following comments by Mr Spencer QC (as he then was) (all dated 24.6.2016, the day the referendum result was announced), none of which have since been removed, all of which were publicly available on 27.6.2019 and all of which continued to be published by Martin Spencer J up to the later date.  In chronological order:
(1)       ‘If Europe disintegrates, with the UK as the catalyst, we will have betrayed our children and grandchildren.’
(2)       This is not something we can undo in 3 or 4 years’ time as in a general election, it will affect generations.’
(3)       We have taken leave of our senses, as a country.  This was a time to stand together, untied with Europe in our beliefs and values.’
19.       The implied meaning of the above tweets includes the statements that (in respect of each numbered tweet using the same sub-paragraphs) those voting and those political parties advocating Leave in the referendum:
(1)       Are responsible:
(a)       for betraying their children and grandchildren;
(b)       for increasing the likelihood of the ‘disintegration’ of Europe;
(2)       Have damaged the UK for generations (this is imputed from the fact that the second comment immediately followed the first); and
(3)       Have, in particular, ‘taken leave of [their] senses’ and have betrayed the values that all should share.
21.       On 6.7.2016, on the said FB site, the user (it is assumed Mr Spencer QC, as he then was) made the following comment, which remained publicly available to view and thereby published on 27.6.2019:
‘Apparently, since the referendum vote, support for staying in the EU has risen in Denmark from 59.8 % to 69 %.  We appear to be a laughing stock in the rest of Europe.  This is Der Spiegel’s verdict: ‘the result has “created new rifts: between old and young, London and the provinces, the English and the Scottish. In the end, further referenda may follow, with the result that the once-powerful UK could be transformed into a loose alliance of marginalised mini-states.” Quite.’
22.       The implied meaning of the above comment was that those voting Leave or advocating such a vote have:
(1)       Made the UK the laughing stock of Europe;
(2)       Been responsible for creating the rifts set out;
(3)       Increased the likelihood of the break-up of the UK into a loose alliance of marginalised mini-states, including England as an independent country;
And that:
(4)       The emergence of England as an independent country would be an extremely negative outcome, were it ever to occur.
23.       In respect of the implied meaning alleged at para 17 (3) above, the author reaches the conclusion that the break-up of the UK would be caused by rifts between (inter alia) England and Scotland; and went on to allege the emergence of ‘mini-states’.  Although England has a population of around 55 million, the most logical meaning of this other to an ‘idiot in a hurry’, informed by the well-known fact that England voted Leave and Scotland did not, was that England would be one of those states.
24.       The FB user, who appears to have been Mr Spencer QC (as he then was) also advertised the fact that he had signed an online Petition that said as follows:
‘We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.’
25.       The implied meaning of the above statement, which (if the site is his) Mr Spencer QC endorsed and which, in his judicial office, he continues to endorse through its publication, is that the Referendum result, in which under 60 % of the population on a turnout under 75 % voted to Leave, was illegitimate and that the UK should therefore remain in the EU in spite of the Referendum result.
Although these comments cannot have any bearing on this case, they do however have a strong bearing on what is happening to our legal system in which we have a Blairite Judicial Appointments Commission which will only appoint Judges who can “demonstrate a life time’s commitment to Equality and Diversity” and are therefore ideologically only of the multiculturalist Left and therefore almost all Remainers. 
This system of appointment clearly needs to be changed to ensure that people are only appointed as Judges as they are the best lawyers and their politics is ignored.  If the British Political Establishment are displaced then we can expect the terms of reference to the Judicial Appointments Commission to be changed after each General Election and appointments to be made only of those who are supporters of whichever party is then in power!

Judical Appointments to fast-track Tick Box "DIVERSITY"!

I wrote a letter recently to the Law Society Gazette, which is the in-house magazine of the Solicitor’s profession. 

It was published under the heading of:- 

“Ticking Boxes”. 

Here is my letter:-

Dear Sir

Re: Judical fast-track would boost diversity – 31st October 2016


I viewed your above story with great disquiet as it seems that this proposal from Mr Justice Hickinbottom seems somewhat symptomatic of the various questionable, not to say flaky “Reform” former initiatives launched by various members of the Judiciary of the England and Wales jurisdiction.

I suspect that most other practitioners, who have a court based practice, will have noticed that, whilst many of the Judges that we experience are still of excellent quality that there is nevertheless an increasing proportion who are not of that quality. They are being appointed by the Judicial appointments system, which was politicised by Lord Irvine when he was Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor to ensure that “no-one with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted.

With the utmost respect to the learned Mr Justice Hickinbottom, the focus of any public service ought to be on actually delivering a service to the public rather than tick-boxing “Diversity” quotas in a fashion reminiscent of the appointment system in the Soviet Union.

Yours faithfully
etc

What do you think?

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN ENGLAND – A POLITICALLY CORRECT STITCH UP?


JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN ENGLAND – A POLITICALLY CORRECT STITCH UP?


You may think that you live in a country where the best of England’s lawyers are appointed to be our Judges. You would be wrong! Here is some detail on why!

Have a look at this:-

THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE (“JAC”) Equality Objectives 2012 – 2016 


The document starts off all sounding fine:-

“The Judicial Appointments Commission seeks to deliver processes which are fair and ensure all applicants receive equal treatment.
Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the JAC must select solely on merit. That combined with the requirement to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection will ensure that the most meritorious candidates will succeed and that the best judges will be appointed.”

BUT then it begins to show the real agenda:-

“The Equality Act 2010 applied a general equality duty to the JAC. The equality duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. In addition the JAC is subject to specific duties as set out in the regulations that came into force on 10 September 2011. The duty requires the JAC to publish relevant, proportionate information demonstrating compliance with the equality duty and to set specific, measurable equality objectives.

The JAC objectives for 2012-2016 are split into four distinct areas; outreach, fair and open processes, monitoring, and promoting diversity within our staff. Each objective and the associated outcomes are detailed below. Reference to statistical data in Objective 4 refers to four specific areas, namely; gender, ethnicity, disability and professional background. This is in line with the Commission’s identified under represented groups. However, all protected characteristics, as defined in the Equality Act 2010, are considered when carrying out equality assessments.”

“Objective 1
To widen the pool of candidates applying for judicial positions through communication and outreach activities”

“The JAC will continue to encourage the widest range of good quality candidates to apply for judicial vacancies. In order to meet this objective we will:
” Continue to explain the selection process through a balanced outreach programme linked to the exercise programme.
” Increase our online presence to help raise awareness and understanding.
” Continue to circulate details of vacancies to a wide network of partner organisations to promote opportunities to their members.
” Analyse candidate feedback following seminars and exercises to ensure available materials continue to be appropriate and relevant and meets candidate expectations.
” Improve feedback provided to candidates throughout the selection process.”

Outcome measure…

” “Agreed outcomes of Barriers survey to be fed into the Diversity Forum Forward Look.”

“Objective 2
To ensure that all JAC selection exercise policies, procedures and practices are free of any unintended bias ensuring all candidates experience a fair and open process”

” “Complete an equality impact assessment against all nine protected characteristics for all selection exercise materials and all changes to the selection process used to identify any bias (unintended or otherwise) and make amendments where necessary.”
” “Continue to deliver equality and diversity training for all panel members as part of a tailored training package delivered before each exercise.”

” “Continue to work with the Judicial Diversity Taskforce and steering group to implement the Neuberger recommendations and other related activities.”

Outcome measure

” “Ensure progression rates for the reported groups are consistent throughout the selection exercise and where possible in line with or an improvement on the eligible pool”.

“Objective 3
To monitor the diversity of candidates selected for judicial appointment (against the eligible pool where available) and take remedial action where appropriate”

” “Consider diversity at the three key checkpoints of the exercise, namely, application, short listing and selection day stage and seek to remedy any disproportional ‘drop out’ of candidates by protected characteristics as outlined in the Equality Act 2010 on which we have data.”
” “Wherever possible we will use a previous comparator exercise to measure any increases/decreases in applications from women, disabled, black and minority ethnic candidates and solicitors in line with the Commission’s identified under represented groups.”
” “Continue to publish official statistics containing diversity breakdowns for public scrutiny twice yearly on the JAC website “
” “Invite equality representatives from the legal professions, i.e. Bar Council, Law Society and CILEx to equality assess qualifying tests and role plays making recommendations for change where appropriate.”

“Objective 4
Promoting diversity in the workplace and ensuring that the JAC meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 as an employer”

” “Ensure regular updates and monitoring of the diversity breakdown of permanent staff through the HR system.”

Outcome measure

” “Staff reflect the diversity of the general population at all levels.”

Click here for the full article >>>
http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/static/documents/jac_equality_objectives_2013.doc

The Judicial Appointments Commission is of course applying a system set for it by the Commissars of Political Correctness. Here are some key extracts from :-

THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY PANEL ON JUDICAL DIVERSITY 2010


“DEVELOPING A DIVERSE POOL

Recommendation 12

The Panel recommends that the Bar Council, the Law Society and ILEX set out a detailed and timetabled programme of change to improve the diversity profile of members of the professions who are suitable for appointment at all levels. They should bring this plan to the Judicial Diversity Taskforce within 12 months of the publication of this report. This plan should include information on how progress will be monitored.”

“STRUCTURED ENCOURAGEMENT

Recommendation 13

The legal profession and the judiciary should put in place systems for supporting suitable and talented candidates from under-represented groups to apply for judicial appointment.”

“THE JAC’S INTERVIEWING PANELS

Recommendation 31

The JAC must assemble diverse selection panels. There should always be a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix.

Recommendation 32

Panel chairs and members must receive regular equality and diversity training that addresses how to identify and value properly transferable skills and also to ensure that they are aware of any potential issues regarding their unconscious bias.

Recommendation 33

All JAC selection panel chairs and members should be regularly appraised and membership periodically refreshed. Poorly performing panel members should be removed.”

“APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL

Recommendation 41

The selection process for vacancies in the most senior courts should be open and transparent, with decisions made on an evidence base provided by the applicant and their referees in response to published criteria. No judge should be directly involved in the selection of his/her successor and there should always be a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix on the selection panel.

Recommendation 43

The selection process to the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom should be reviewed to reduce the number of serving justices involved and to ensure there is always a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix on the selection panel. This review should include consultation with the Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Lord President of the Court of Session.”

Click here for the full article>>>
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/advisory-panel-judicial-diversity-2010.pdf

This “Report” was chaired by, and mostly written by, Baroness Neuberger. Its recommendations are sometimes referred to in official documents as “Neuberger guidelines”.

Here is an extract from Baroness Neuberger’s biography that may help clarify what mind-set and ideological background she brought to her work. It also clarifies what personal interests she might have brought to bear in writing the report.

“Rabbi Julia Babette Sarah Neuberger, Baroness Neuberger, DBE (born 27 February 1950; née Julia Schwab) is a member of the British House of Lords. She formerly took the Liberal Democrat whip, but resigned from the party and joined the Crossbenches in September 2011 upon becoming the full-time Senior Rabbi to the West London Synagogue.

EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION
Julia Schwab was born on 27 February 1950 to Walter and Liesel (“Alice”) Schwab. She attended South Hampstead High School and Newnham College, Cambridge, obtaining her Rabbinic Diploma at Leo Baeck College, London, where she taught from 1977-97. She was Chancellor of the University of Ulster from 1994-2000.

Her father was born in the UK to German Jewish immigrants who arrived before the First World War. Her mother was a refugee from Nazi Germany, arriving at age 22 in 1937. The Schwab Trust was set up in their name, to help support and educate young refugees and asylum seekers.

RELIGIOUS ROLES
Neuberger was Britain’s second female rabbi after Jackie Tabick, and the first to have her own synagogue. She was rabbi of the South London Liberal Synagogue from 1977 to 1989 and is President of West Central Liberal Synagogue. She has been president of theLiberal Judaism movement since January 2007. On 1 February 2011, the West London Synagogue (a Movement for Reform Judaism synagogue) announced that she had been appointed as Senior Rabbi of the synagogue.

PARLIAMENTARY ROLES
Neuberger was appointed a DBE in the New Year Honours of 2003. In June 2004 she was created a life peer as Baroness Neuberger, of Primrose Hill in the London Borough of Camden. She served as a Liberal Democrat Health spokesperson from 2004 to 2007. On 29 June 2007, Baroness Neuberger was appointed by the incoming Prime Minister Gordon Brown as the government’s champion of volunteering. She resigned from the Liberal Democrats upon becoming Senior Rabbi of the West London Synagogue.

PERSONAL LIFE AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Julia Schwab married Professor Anthony Neuberger.[8] They have two adult children, a son and a daughter. Anthony Neuberger is the son of Professor Albert Neuberger, and the brother of Professors Michael and James Neuberger, as well as Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.”

For further reference on Baroness Neuberger you might find this snippet interesting>>>

Rabbi Julia Neuberger (of West London Synagogue)’s daughter Harriet to be gay bride | Daily Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560965/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Rabbi-Julia-Neubergers-daughter-Harriet-gay-bride.html

It is also “interesting” to say the least that this is what Baroness Neuberger’s brother-in-law said recently:-

“A career judiciary with fast-track promotion to higher courts may be required to overcome lack of diversity on the bench, the UK’s most senior judge has suggested. City law firms use “honeyed words” to obscure their efforts in preventing talented solicitors from becoming judges, Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, said. He said without further changes the shortage of women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds would take too long to rectify.

In an interview with the UK supreme court blog, Neuberger also says that the courts system remains “chronically underfunded” and that the increase in litigants in person – due to cuts in legal aid – is leading to delays and “less good justice”.

His comments, released in advance of the new legal term, will galvanise the debate over how to ensure that the judiciary better reflects the composition of society. Overall, 24.5% of court judges are women and about 5.8% are from ethnic backgrounds. Seven of the 38 judges in the court of appeal are women.
Of the 12 justices on the supreme court only one, Lady Hale, is a woman. Another of the justices, Lord Sumption, has said that under the current appointments system it will take 50 years to achieve a representative judiciary.

“A career judiciary where there is a potential fast track could be an option: such an individual could enter it at, say, the age of 35 as a junior tribunal member or possibly a district judge and work their way up,” Neuberger told the UKSC blog, which is independent of the supreme court…”

Neuberger said that it should not be assumed that the problem will rectify itself. “I am not one of those people who optimistically thinks that if we just sit back it will all sort itself out and the judiciary will eventually include many more women and ethnic minorities,” he said. Merit should still be an essential requirement “although to be fair, merit is a slightly flexible concept”.”

Here is the full article>>>
Judiciary needs fast-track scheme to boost diversity, says top judge | Law | theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/17/judiciary-needs-fast-track-scheme-boost-diversity-neuberger