The Judiciary has long had the boys club ring about it and the issue in the UK arose recently with a Guardian article looking at whether the tony Garrick Club, named after actor David Garrick, in London’s West End, a male-only enclave for figures in business, the entertainment industry and law, should be a place where (male) judges should join.
The gender issue has raised its head in a ‘gavel or Garrick’ controversy that has ruffled the robes of judges who belong to the exclusive club and has now lead to the resignation of four Judges. The Evening Standard reported that the Judicial Office has confirmed the appeal court judge Sir Keith Lindblom and the high court judges Sir Nicholas Cusworth, Sir Nicholas Lavender and Sir Ian Dove had resigned.
Dozens of lawyers and others have since protested at the men-only rules for the Club and its judicial membership in a protest organised by leading barrister and womens’ advocate and barrister Charlotte Proudman show said: “I hope that we see a domino effect, with more and more people slowly starting to resign. And I certainly hope by the end of this week that all of the judges have resigned from the Garrick Club.
The membership includes five appeal court judges, eight High Court judges, and numerous serving and retired judges, alongside 150 barristers and a multitude of senior solicitors, as shown below.
Perhaps the Garrick Club, an exclusive men-only establishment located in London’s esteemed West End, serves merely as a venue for members to convene informally, engage in conversations about life, and undoubtedly, cricket. It’s conceivable that any mention of professional matters is promptly dismissed, and business discussions are strictly forbidden within the club’s confines, as some assert.
There’s a possibility that sitting around the communal dining table opposite a judge who may preside over one’s case next week holds no professional advantage (though it’s challenging to see how it could be detrimental).
While these scenarios are plausible, without firsthand experience within the club, certainty remains elusive. However, skepticism looms over these claims, and even if discussions about work are strictly prohibited, the mere membership of judges in an exclusionary club raises concerns regarding public perception.
The inclusion of judges in men-only clubs presents a distinct issue. Similar to recusal applications, where judges must not only ensure the absence of bias but also address the perception thereof, the membership of judges in the Garrick Club raises questions not only about their impartiality but also about the image it projects.
Despite ongoing efforts to promote gender equality within the senior judiciary, a significant gender disparity persists in top positions.
Women constitute only about a third (35 percent) of court judges, with this proportion dropping to 30 percent for High Court and higher positions. Only two out of twelve justices in the Supreme Court are women. These statistics are somewhat disheartening in a profession where women make up 39 percent of barristers and 53 percent of solicitors.
Former Supreme Court president Lady Hale aptly noted that judges wouldn’t consider membership in clubs that exclude ethnic minorities or LGBTQ+ individuals, yet membership in clubs that exclude women seems somehow permissible.
In response to these concerns outlined by The Guardian and others, the Judicial Office has offered a tepid statement, asserting that it does not interfere in judges’ private lives.
In June, members of the Garrick Club will vote on whether to amend the constitution. Should the majority of judge members opt to admit women, it may signal progress. Nevertheless, if the club persists in excluding individuals based on gender, members of the judiciary risk being associated with an institution that perpetuates inequality.
