Life peerage: Dame Sue Carr DBE

[David Beamish]

It has been announced from 10 Downing Street (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/announcement-of-peerages-september-2023) that Dame Sue Carr DBE, Lord Chief Justice designate, is to be created a life peer. She was born on 1 September 1964.

As a serving judge, she will be disqualified from participation in proceedings of the House of Lords after her introduction.

[sven_me...@web.de]

What  senseless appointment again. They still not part it enough.

[S. S.]

Sven, out of curiosity, what exactly is senseless in the appointment? 

S.S.

[sven_me...@web.de]

The mixup of legislatiive and judiciary

[Observer]

The overlap of the legislative and the judicial is something that has traditionally not bothered the British constitution. It's a law-school obsession that matters no more than walking on the cracks in a pavement. Fretting about the subject led the Blair administration into messing about with the office of Lord Chancellor and setting up the Supreme Court in place of the judicial committee of the House of Lords. From what's being reported, I understand that the new Lady Chief Justice will not be sitting in the Lords while a judge.

[sven_me...@web.de]

You do not seem to undestand the situation completely.

[Henry W]

It is an odd constitutional quirk we now have: the two most senior judges in England & Wales [President of the Supreme Court & Lord Chief Justice] are given a Life Peerage on appointment, even though the terms of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 prevent them from sitting in the House during their judicial tenure.

The position with the Master of the Rolls seems to make more sense - as they approach retirement they are made a life peer (e.g. Lord Etherton).  Although its worth noting that one recent Master of the Rolls has not been made a peer - Lord Dyson (he was styled as Lord Dyson on appointment to the Supreme Court in 2010, which automatically confers a judicial courtesy title for life)
 

[John B-H]

I think that it's based on judicial independence that Lord Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court are created life peers on appointment and not when they are retiring. This way there is no risk that a Lord Chief Justice or Supreme Court President who doesn't please the Prime Minister would be denied a peerage.

[Jonathan]

What are people's views on the position being known as "Lady Chief Justice" when it has a female holder? I would have preferred it to have remained Lord Chief Justice, by analogy with Lord Lieutenant, Lord Mayor, Lord Speaker, all of which remain"Lord" when held by a female. In these contexts, the use of "Lord" is different from the personal title "Lord", for example someone holding a peerage. I believe female bishops also remain formally "The Lord Bishop of" wherever. In an age where female film stars have to be called actors, it seems strange to change a centuries old job title to make it gender dependent.

[S. S.]

Jonathan, this is a bit of a complicated question that tangles socio-political factors with that of the ever-changing world of "tradition and the old". Isn't the whole reason the positions of Lord Mayor, Lord Speaker, Lord-Lieutenant being male-orientated based in the fact there holders have historically been males? Granted, not much of a difference if the position be held by a woman, but equally one can argue why not just change it with the gender of the occupant. I seek not controversy on this particular point as to the usage in cases where it becomes less clear, i.e. a non-binary person. 

As to the analogies, you can (if indeed occurs in future) just change the Lord to a Lady in most cases and it will be fine, e.g. Lady-Lieutenant, Lady Speaker etc. Bishop becomes a bit of an oddity since that position in the old church has been held by and continues to be held by men. Lady Bishop? I don't know really, up to the tide of time on that count.

At the end of the day, certain conventions hold out, others are amended, some die and never come back. I see no difference really in whether Lord or Lady Chief Justice is used. It is at the mercy of time and changing conventions as everything else is.

S.S.

[John Horton]

The Masters of formerly men-only Cambridge colleges are still referred to as Master. There is yet to be a male head of house at Girton but it seems to be established already that such a person (still) will be Mistress of Girton.

---

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com <peerag...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of S. S. <muhammads...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 October 2023 11:44 AM
To: Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Life peerage: Dame Sue Carr DBE

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/d5523349-1ae0-4240-b92c-1b51c63165b7n%40googlegroups.com.

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored where permitted by law.

[colinp]

It could be because of judicial precedent.  When women were appointed to the High Court they became known as Mrs Justice Blank, the male judges having been Mr Justice Blank.  The alternative - just calling them all "Justice Blank" was either not considered or, it was, rejected - sounds too American?  Then when women were appointed to the Court of Appeal they became known as Lady Justice Blank, the male judges having been Lord Justice Blank. It seems therefore to be a natural progression for  the LCJ to be Lady Chief Justice if female.  This is how the equivalent in Northern Ireland is known (currently a woman)

[S. S.]

The American Supreme Court did something similar with the Justices of the court. They always used to be referred to as "Mr Justice XYZ" in references and documents. Eventually, once women entered, they resorted to the simple "Justice XYZ". 

S.S.

[Jonathan]

On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 15:01:14 UTC+1 colinp wrote:

It could be because of judicial precedent.  When women were appointed to the High Court they became known as Mrs Justice Blank, the male judges having been Mr Justice Blank.  The alternative - just calling them all "Justice Blank" was either not considered or, it was, rejected - sounds too American?  Then when women were appointed to the Court of Appeal they became known as Lady Justice Blank, the male judges having been Lord Justice Blank. It seems therefore to be a natural progression for  the LCJ to be Lady Chief Justice if female.  This is how the equivalent in Northern Ireland is known (currently a woman)

There was one female High Court judge who asked to be known as "Ms Justice". I just looked it up and it was Alison Russell, back in 2014. I thought it was much more recent. That seemed slightly ironic, given that High Court judges are automatically made dames or knights, so their personal title outside court is not Ms, Mrs, or Mr, but rather Dame or Sir.

In looking that up, I also discovered that when Elizabeth Butler-Sloss was made am appeal court judge in 1988, she was originally referred to as Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. It took until 1994 for that to change. I would still make a distinction, though, as Lord/Lady Justice is the form of address for a specific judge, whereas Lord Chief Justice is a job title. We wouldn't use the American-sounding "Lady Chief Justice Carr," but rather say, "The Lady Chief Justice, Lady Carr".

[David Beamish]

The Government press notice has been followed up by a notice today in the London Gazette (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4452827) giving her full name: Sue Lascelles Carr D.B.E.

Another notice in the Gazette (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4455529) confirms her appointment from 1 October: "THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 1 October 2023 to appoint The Right Honourable Dame Sue Lascelles Carr, D.B.E., to be Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales."

[Peter FitzGerald]

It's a difficult issue to resolve.

The traditional approach is that "Lord" is effectively an adjective (I believe the technical term is a "noun adjunct") modifying the position in question. A Lord Mayor is not a Lord who is a Mayor: he is just a particularly important Mayor. "Lord" (in this context essentially just meaning "high" or "important") has been added as a modifier to all sorts of positions over the years for this reason ("Steward" vs "High Steward" vs "Lord High Steward", "Chamberlain" vs "Lord Chamberlain" vs "Lord Great Chamberlain", etc). It therefore does not change when the holder is a woman: as others have noted, there are plenty of examples of this - female Lord-Lieutenants, Lord Mayors, First Lords of the Treasury (and even there, where it looks like a noun, it's really just a contraction of "Lord Commissioner of the Treasury"), Lord Presidents of the Council (including the incumbent, Penny Mordaunt), etc.

As also noted by others, this hit a snag when female judges started to be appointed: it would be pretty bizarre for a female judge rising through the ranks to be "Mrs Justice Smith" in the High Court, and eventually "Lady Smith" in the House of Lords (originally; now the Supreme Court), but in between those being "Lord Justice Smith" in the Court of Appeal. As alluded to previously, another complicating factor is that this is both a pre-nominal title ("Lord Justice Smith") and a position ("Lord Justice of Appeal"). It's one thing to say "Jane Smith is a Lord Justice of Appeal" (just as "Jane Smith is the Lord Mayor of London"), but another to say "Jane Smith is Lord Justice Smith". This issue doesn't arise with other titles because they aren't used pre-nominally. And now with the first female LCJ, I suppose the feeling is that having been "Lady Justice Carr", and being about to become "Lady Carr of Somewhere" (presumably), it would be an oddity for her suddenly to have "Lord" in her title.

But just adopting the "Lady Chief Justice" approach and saying "Lord now always becomes Lady when the holder is female" is also not as simple as it might sound. When a Lord Mayor is a man, his wife is a Lady Mayoress. So female Lord Mayors might not actually want to become Lady Mayors: they may feel that that makes them sound like consorts rather than substantive office-holders. (No such risk exists with judicial titles, of course - the wife of a male Lord Chief Justice is not a Lady Chief Justice! - but that cannot be said across the whole spectrum.)

That said, I suspect that eventually that is the way that this will go. At some point, a woman becoming Lord President of the Council, or whatever, will ask "why do I have to be Lord President of the Council when the head of the judiciary gets to be the Lady Chief Justice?". Since the principle adopted here appears to have been that the office-holder has been allowed to choose the form of her title, I suspect that such a person will then be allowed to be known as the Lady President of the Council. And once that starts happening, I suspect it will be adopted across the board pretty rapidly.

(As an aside, I also found the "Ms Justice Russell" situation rather odd. As I understand it, the objection to "Mrs" in general is that women, just like men, should not be forced to use titles that denote their marital status. But the "Mrs" in "Mrs Justice" has never denoted marital status - female High Court judges have always used that title, married or not, and there has never been a "Miss Justice". Interestingly, yet another option has been used in Northern Ireland, where there is currently a "Madam Justice McBride".)

[Jamie Arthur]

Just on this, and apologies if discussed above,

Does anyone know the first point at which a female equivalent title was used in place of a traditionally male one ?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/3b5625bc-286f-4217-93ba-200164940e61n%40googlegroups.com.

[David Beamish]

The House of Lords website indicates (https://members.parliament.uk/member/5002/career) that her letters patent have been sealed today: Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill

Gazette notice (with "of ... in the County of ...") awaited.

[David Beamish]

Details now gazetted (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4480893):

THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 6 November 2023 to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon The Right Honourable Dame Sue Lascelles Carr, D.B.E., by the name, style and title of BARONESS CARR OF WALTON-ON-THE-HILL, of Walton-on-the-Hill in the County of Surrey.

[Observer]

One sees some awkwardly long titles nowadays. My recollection is that the tail end of a long placename used to be cut for the "appearing" title and limited to the territorial designation (BARONESS BLOGGS OF WALTON, of  Walton-on-the-Hill in the County of Surrey).

[S. S.]

Observer, I have looked through the list of life peerages for fun for the etymological phenomenon that you have just noticed. I will post the results of the compilation soon. 

S.S.