In an earlier blog post, I noted that we would be waiting with interest to see how the (then newly appointed) Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales (LCJ), Baroness Carr, would use her power, whether statutory or social. This post offers a reflection on two recent public appearances by the LCJ: the LCJ’s Annual Press Conference on 18 February 2025 and the LCJ’s Annual Evidence Session before the House of Lords Constitution Committee on Wednesday 26 February 2025. While each event is useful to hear of the senior judiciary’s aims for the forthcoming year and reflections on the year just past, these public interventions by England and Wales’ most senior judge have arisen in the context of what she herself describes as a “lively global and political environment” and provide a good opportunity to reflect upon the LCJ’s time in office thus far. What is evident from recent public appearances by the LCJ is that “[no audible response]” – the reply recorded to one question from a journalist in the transcript of the annual press conference – is not characteristic of Carr’s leadership. Instead, the current LCJ is clearly willing to speak out and respond directly to questions about (or challenges to) judicial decision-making and the work of the judiciary as a whole even if that, in turn, leads to increased scrutiny of her responses.
This post considers the LCJ’s responses in relation to three themes: first, rule of law concerns; second, judicial morale and the general health of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). And third, the post also reflects on what the LCJ’s comments tell us about her approach to her own judicial power and leadership.
Rule of law concerns
The rule of law, amongst other things, requires some defense by those in public office. The LCJ notes her own role in this but, in both appearances, provides a reminder of the significant role played by MPs too. The Annual Press Conference provided a timely opportunity for the LCJ to demonstrate what a judicial defense of the rule of law looks like when she, as widely reported, explained that she was “deeply troubled to learn of the exchanges” between the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 12th February 2025. In this exchange, the two party leaders appeared to agree that the decision by a tribunal judge to allow a Ukrainian settlement scheme to be used to give a Palestinian family the right to live in the United Kingdom was wrong. The Prime Minister went further in his response to say that “it should be Parliament who makes the rules on immigration”. In both her public appearances, the LCJ focused on the consequential publicity of the exchange at PMQs and stressed that where reporting is inaccurate or there is “abuse of judges” arising from that, it “is simply wholly wrong”. The “dangers…of inaccurate reporting”, such as misrepresenting the circumstances of an individual case, can have implications for judges, the court process, and wider public trust in the administration of justice. There are potential risks associated with mixing parliamentary debates on matters of policy and law with reported judicial decisions. The public nature of that debate requires accuracy in how those decisions – and cases – are represented. It is this that the LCJ is, I think, highlighting. Though there appears to be an acceptance by the LCJ that some judicial decisions may come into conflict with political agendas, Carr’s robust response in this instance seems to emphasise that the channels through which debate about judicial decision-making (and power) occurs must be carefully considered, with accuracy as a primary aim.
It was perhaps fortuitous that the LCJ had such clear vehicles through which to express these concerns (the press conference and evidence session). This did not however stop one journalist framing their question to the LCJ about the PMQs exchange in terms of ‘judicial overreach’. While the substance of that case is outside the scope of this post, the implications of pursuing this narrative for the current state of judicial-executive relations is not. It is often unhelpful to weave normative claims about judicial power into questions about judicial decision-making in court. The constitutional desirability of different types or degrees of power held by judges is a separate matter from the public perceptions and understandings of particular decisions in specific cases. Mixing these things together risks muddying the waters when it comes to understanding judicial power accurately. In the Constitution Committee hearing, Baroness Carr raised this matter specifically. She described how she was “sitting on a pile of newspaper articles here about outrageous judicial overreach, ‘lefty, liberal, outrageous’ judges, ‘crazy’ decisions.” The issue, she noted, was not that judges’ work should be immune to criticism or that “well-informed” and “appropriate debate” should be stifled but rather that some contributions to public debate are, in fact, “personal attacks on judges”. The LCJ pointed out to the Constitution Committee that “Judges, literally, they are without defence, apart from Section 3 of the Constitution Act and my presence here, for example.” And it is this lack of ability to speak out, a hallmark of securing and protecting judicial independence, that places judges in a complex, albeit constitutionally desirable, position when their own decisions come under intense public scrutiny.
Judicial morale and the general health of HMCTS
A further issue prominent in the LCJ’s comments at both appearances was the overall efficiency of the administration of justice and the effect that the current poor health of the justice system is having on judges’ morale. As the LCJ told the Constitution Committee, the “rule of law is not free”. It was clear from the LCJ’s appearances that she wished to “emphasise what is at stake by not funding the system properly”. HMCTS and those working in courts and tribunals are experiencing daily the impact of long-term reductions in funding for justice which has “declined by 22% in real per person terms from 2009-10 to 2022-23”. This observation encapsulates the serious consequences of the case backlogs which are being felt presently. There is, the LCJ argued, a need to prioritise appropriate funding for justice to retain the “country’s reputation as a centre for justice and the rule of law”. It is the “link between the rule of law and economic growth” that must be recognised in government funding decisions to sure up the services offered by the legal sector and, in turn, improve the administration of justice.
Intrinsically linked to the effective administration of justice is the ability of judicial officeholders to work productively, safely and with appropriate support. Issues of judicial morale have appeared in many previous LCJ communications, such as via annual reporting. The exchange between Starmer and Badenoch – and the consequential attention drawn to this through media reporting – has been a further illustration of how “unfair or sensational negative reporting” could create “real, everyday risks to the safety and lives of judges and their families”. To that extent, this risks compounding existing problems relating to the security of judges. The LCJ noted that there have been “extraordinarily serious security threats” to judges: doorstepping of judges and even a death threat. It is perhaps unsurprising that the LCJ wanted to publicly address this since it does impact judicial morale and recruitment and these directly affect how efficiently the legal system may administer justice. But further, these two appearances come after the “very serious physical attack” on Family Judge, Patrick Peruško, in Milton Keynes in late 2024 which naturally shone a brighter light on the potential risks to judges inside the courtroom too.
Baroness Carr raised in both the press conference and Committee session the latest Judicial Attitude Survey and was frank about its findings. With a 90% response rate, the survey highlighting that “three-quarters of serving judges suffer from work-related stress symptoms” is concerning. The LCJ took the opportunity in the Committee appearance to describe further the role of judges and the demands of the work but also argued that judges “aren’t people who shut the door and go home, they are people who care”. Alluding to the humanity of judging may bring some clarity of thought to how judges are understood, how their work is reported and to remind us all that how their work is debated has real-world consequences felt on an individual basis. This representation is not something judges themselves can do but the LCJ, in her leadership capacity, is the advocate for her judges. What the LCJ says in these public appearances communicates her leadership style to those she leads.
A ‘powerful’ judge: the LCJ’s leadership
This is important because it is through the recognition of the challenges faced by judges that the LCJ may be able to foster willingness and energy from the judiciary to invest in the future of the system and a number of projects which present opportunities for change. The LCJ is clearly interested in moving to “start looking away from the fire brigading, forward to the town planning, what a future judiciary looks like”. The LCJ noted there are “really exciting judge-led initiatives” relating to digitisation, listing, and the use of artificial intelligence among many others. Alongside this, the LCJ reiterated her desire to see Parliament implement legislative change to support growth and unity in HMCTS. The LCJ has explained previously that such legislation would, in part, create “a healthier leadership structure” within HMCTS, not least for the Senior President of Tribunals to become a head of division. This supports the One Judiciary projectwhich on the one hand looks to achieve efficiencies and “better working practices” and, on the other, promotes “a cultural aspect, a holistic desire to bring all parts of the judiciary – magistrates, coroners, tribunal judges, court judges – all together”.
The current LCJ, as a judicial leader, is including in her responsibilities the need to promote and defend the national and international reputation of the legal system. One strategy seen since Baroness Carr has taken office has been to increase transparency and protect open justice. The creation of the Transparency and Open Justice Board in April 2024 has been key to achieving this aim, with the Board, and Mr Justice Nicklin as its chair, tasked with leading and coordinating work in this area. Interestingly, in her appearance before the Constitution Committee, Carr returned to this and stressed the need to change open justice “from being a bolt on or an addition to being something that is front and centre of everything that judges do”. This, Carr argued, will help to avoid “careless slips by overworked staff and overworked judges” such as any failures in the provision of core court documents or the publishing of case lists.
The goal of shared responsibility and, more importantly, its achievement, is a test of leadership. It is interesting now to consider the LCJ as a leader. Analysing these two recent appearances tells us a lot about the ‘leadership language’ and social power of the current LCJ. The role of the LCJ as an advocate, not in court, but for her judges is clear. Carr does not shy away from speaking frankly and openly about the most challenging of issues. It is clear that she has the wellbeing and welfare of her judges at the forefront of her mind but, beyond that, she is alert to the need for her to maintain wider relationships between the judiciary and the other branches of the state. Carr will speak out and, while she cites Section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as the basis for that (and her wider ability to appear before Parliament in the same Act), one gets the sense that Carr would want to find a suitable channel to communicate these concerns even if that legislative provision did not exist. The LCJ has both statutory and social power but the LCJ exercises her power intentionally to support her core goals as Chief Justice.. It is in this regard that some of the work of the LCJ in the constitution today takes on a subtly political character, in the pursuit of agendas set by the senior judiciary in respect of the administration of justice. There are examples here, while fundamentally situated in the context of judicial work, where the LCJ displays actions much more akin to those found within a commercial organisation. Navigating disagreements between individuals is not overtly political in the sense we might think but rather a natural feature of organisational leadership.
By embracing these political features of leadership and management of an organisation, the LCJ is willing to engage – and even challenge – the actions of other political actors. There are two initial observations to make here. Firstly, one is inclined to ask the question whether these examples of more deliberate and public action of the post-2005 LCJs continue to demonstrate the judiciary’s response to the changed role of the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps the LCJ, by robustly defending her judges and clearly advocating for their welfare and for the recognition of their work and working conditions, is merely filling the space left by the old-style Lord Chancellor (one might remember the debates surrounding the then-Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss’, response in the wake of the Daily Mail’s ‘Enemies of the People’ headline, for example). For the reasons suggested here, there have been numerous occasions in recent times where judges’ work has needed some form of representation in public debate. Working within the parameters of the post-2005 LCJ role, Carr is well-placed to offer this. This is, perhaps, an indication of the changing nature of the leadership provided by the office of LCJ today: that it takes place in the public arena – increasing transparency and accountability – rather than behind closed doors. .
For some however, these recent interventions by the LCJ into political life are efforts to remove public scrutiny of judges. Carr’s response to the interaction at PMQs on the 12th February could be seen as an “ill-judged attack on the Parliamentary process” which sought to “suppress justified criticism of the merits of a controversial judgment”, as described by Professor Richard Ekins in a recent article on this matter. From that perspective, this might appear to be a further example of potentially undesirable expansions of the power of the judiciary. These recent appearances – and the wider work of the LCJ – indicate that in this new system of judicial leadership, the LCJ is seeking to establish clearer boundaries and expectations relating to the public scrutiny of judicial work. By senior judges engaging more readily and directly with political life and subjecting themselves to increased public scrutiny as a result, it is perhaps possible – to an extent – for less senior judges to be shielded from that same scrutiny.
Conclusions
Reflecting upon public appearances of England and Wales’ most senior judge allows us to consider again what we understand the work of that judge to be. It is clear from the LCJ’s annual press conference and from her appearance before Parliament that this role includes significant leadership responsibilities. Indeed, at some times, these responsibilities take on a political character where the justice system, or those who work within it, requires an advocate. Consequently, the LCJ’s appearances find themselves subject to scrutiny, review and are likely “coloured by the rough and tumble of public life”. The LCJ has made clear the importance of promoting the work of judges and has not sought to remove their work from legitimate criticism. This question of what amounts to ‘legitimate’ when it comes to scrutiny of judicial decision-making remains a topic of ongoing negotiation. From her recent appearances, the LCJ makes clear that the media, too, has a part to play in this. The LCJ is keen to promote the “shared responsibility” when it comes to protecting judicial independence, securing the rule of law and maintaining the successes and strengths of the legal system, but this needs to also encompass discussions about the boundaries of any scrutiny – and, indeed, how narrowly-defined such boundaries should be. These appearances should not be interpreted as reckless opportunism to promote judicial interests over those of others. The LCJ here is arguing for many things that have great value to all of us. In this regard, everyone should have the “moral courage” to speak out against injustice, however diplomatic one has to be in the process.
I wish to thank Professor Graham Gee, Dr Chris Monaghan and the editors of this blog for their comments on an earlier draft of this post.
Dr Josie Welsh, University of Worcester
Suggested citation: J. Welsh, ‘“[No audible response]” is not how the Lady Chief Justice leads her judiciary’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (1st April 2025) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))
