The judiciary needs to be more diverse so that the public feel those on the bench are genuinely “our judges” rather than “beings from another planet”, the president of the supreme court has said.
Women working in law and other professions are increasingly aware and resentful of earning less than men, said Hale, who is the court’s first female president since its creation 10 years ago.
Isn’t that, ummm, illegal? Yes.
But of course, the reasons they are earning less than men aren’t because anyone’s breaking the law…
“We do have in this country a gender pay gap to worry about,” she said. “The more pay is [delivered] through individual negotiation rather than collective agreement, the greater the risk of imbalance.
People paid vast sums of money to argue their clients’ side in court, no matter how hopeless, are just helpless babes in the woods bamboozled by The Man. It seems.
“[Women] are just waking up to the fact that they are not being paid as much. I have heard terrible stories about even successful women barristers being offered out by their [chamber] clerks at less than their male equivalents. That’s an area where there’s still work to do.”
Who’d hire her as a barrister, if she can’t negotiate her own salary?
So, if we do further ‘diversify’ the judiciary, what sort of sterling service can we expect as a result? What good has Hale actually done?
“I’m proud of the [article 50, Gina] Miller case because it was a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do,” Hale explained. “It was reminiscent of the 17th-century battle between parliament and the king. We were reinforcing principles that had been established then.”