Judges in England and Wales have voiced strong opposition to proposals by the Ministry of Justice aimed at harmonizing judicial terms and conditions across courts and tribunals. The ministry’s consultation, launched this week, is intended to create consistent employment policies to support a “modern judiciary” and promote closer working practices, but this initiative has drawn significant criticism from members of the judiciary and their unions.
The consultation was framed by ministry officials as a step toward “one judicial family,” reflecting the priority set by Baroness Carr of Walton-on-Hill, the lady chief justice, to unify judicial operations. However, the response from senior judges has been emphatic. Representatives from the Council of His Majesty’s Circuit Judges—Judge Simon Monty KC, president, and Judge Timothy Petts, honorary secretary—expressed firm objections, particularly challenging the authority of Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor David Lammy to unilaterally amend serving judges’ terms of appointment without their explicit, individual consent.
The GMB union’s judicial branch echoed these concerns, describing the proposed changes as “constitutionally flawed, substantively detrimental and operationally unjust.” Andy Brodie, the branch secretary, criticized the proposals for disregarding judicial independence and tenure, as well as the complexities of fee-paid and portfolio judicial roles. He further contended that the ministry’s plans failed to account for the government’s own Employment Rights Act, recently introduced to safeguard employee protections.
Among the most contentious elements is a clause requiring judges to report at the earliest opportunity any conduct that could affect their standing or that of the judiciary. The circuit judges’ council called this provision “vague, unworkable and objectionable,” arguing that it broadly imposes a new, disproportionate duty of self-reporting that extends beyond current judicial conduct standards overseen by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
Proposed revisions to leave arrangements also raised alarm. The ministry suggests judges request leave “as far in advance as possible,” with an expectation that leave be taken when tribunals are closed, unless otherwise authorized by a leadership judge. The council warned this could represent a major unwelcome change, potentially requiring judges to seek permission rather than merely notify leave dates as currently practiced. This shift, the judges argue, risks undermining judicial autonomy and workforce flexibility.
Concerns were also expressed about the impact of these proposals on recruitment. The circuit judges warned potential candidates may be discouraged from accepting appointments under terms subject to unilateral modification by the government, particularly given the comparatively lucrative alternative careers they would forgo. This could exacerbate existing recruitment challenges facing the judiciary.
Claire Gilham, president of the GMB judicial branch, criticized the consultation process itself, noting that unions with judicial membership were excluded from meaningful participation and that consultation materials were confined to an obscure intranet site rather than publicly accessible platforms. Gilham also highlighted a broader issue, reporting that one-third of judges experience bullying, predominantly from leadership, which she linked to a controlling management style that the proposals might reinforce.
The Ministry of Justice responded by affirming that the consultation is part of a broader effort to modernize the judiciary, clarify terms and conditions without fundamentally altering them, and enhance recruitment and collaboration across courts and tribunals. Officials stated that input from the judiciary is being considered and that a formal response will be issued in due course.