Talk:List of judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales

Untitled

I think this should be moved to List of Lords Justice of Appeal, in common with the regular plural formation. Ian Cairns 00:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No. "Lords Justices" is the correct term. See, for instance, the announcement of the appointment of the new Master of the Rolls in the London Gazette: The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 3 October 2005, to appoint The Right Honourable Sir Anthony Peter Clarke, Knight, one of the Lords Justices of Appeal, to be Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England. Proteus (Talk) 11:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The cite from the London Gazette is indeed as shown however it should be noted that being a formal royal document the language is deliberately of a somewhat antique form. The current usage — and that used throughout government — is Lord and Lady Justices, where only the last word takes the plural s. viz http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list/ The title of this page is therefore out of step with common usage and, I feel, should be amended accordingly. Calmeilles (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The internal Wiki link for David Keene points to a different David Keene. I think we need a disambiguation page, but I am not sufficiently experienced to create one.--ukexpat 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Is correct, Lord Justice Kay is not 80.69.30.244 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Full list!

We need a historical list! john k (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Title needs to include female judges

There have been female judges of the Court of Appeal since 1988. Admittedly the official title was "Lord Justice" until the Senior Courts Act 1981 (as it has been renamed) was amended by the Courts Act 2003, but section 3 now makes it explicit that the official title is "Lord Justice of Appeal" or "Lady Justice of Appeal". There are now 9 serving Lady Justices (plus two retired, and one promoted) out of 39 in office. It is unsuportable that this list shoud continue to refer only to the title of the male judges I'd suggest moving to List of judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales but could be persuaded that List of Lords and Lady Justices of Appeal or List of Lords Justices and Lady Justices of Appeal would serve.

This comment applies equally to the article on Lord Justice of Appeal and I'll make a comment over there. Ferma (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps best for the discussion to take place at Talk:Lord Justice of Appeal and this list can follow the result. Ferma (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69TygpIEa?url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-magistrates-and-tribunal-judges/list-of-members-of-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-magistrates-and-tribunal-judges/list-of-members-of-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

alma maters

For Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom we list the alma mater of each judge. Any strenuous objection to me inserting a column and including that information here for Lord Justices? --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What's been done at the JSC page is irrelevant. Is there any particular reason for doing this, or is it (e.g.) a coded way of insinuating that CA judges are generally out-of-touch white upper class men from privileged backgrounds? It would be more interesting to know what their pre-appointment background/experience was (e.g. crime, chancery, public law, employment law, patent, family law) as opposed to which university they went to 40 years or so ago. Bencherlite^Talk 21:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No coded messages (although I am curious as to how many non-Oxbridge judges we have). Just thought it might be interesting data to capture. And a lot easier to summarise than prior practising experience, and less controversial than ethnicity or religion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have strong views, but I don't think it's that important at the individual LJ level in the absence of any source saying that where a particular LJ went to university is noteworthy in the context of his/her present position. If there is a reliable source talking about the proportions of e.g. Oxbridge LJs out of the LJs as a whole, that would be indicative of the point being of importance generally; otherwise it looks as though WP has simply decided to look at individual LJs' university education for no good reason, and a risk of a coded message being inferred even where none is. I'll leave it there and won't interfere, though I suspect if you want further views then WT:LAW is more likely to have more watchers than this page! Bencherlite^Talk 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I'll park it for now. We can revisit later if anyone else expresses any views. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)