News

Retirement age for judges upped to 75

By on
13

Five years longer

Judges in England and Wales will soon be able to work up until the age of 75, the government has confirmed — five years longer than the current rules allow.

The government says the change, which will see the mandatory retirement age for bench goers upped from 70 to 75, reflects the fact that large swathes of the population are now working for longer.

It hopes the tweak will create greater career flexibility for judges and in turn help retain top talent. The uplift also applies to magistrates and coroners.

The move follows a government consultation last year which floated a number of alternatives to the 70 cut-off point, including raising the mandatory age to 72 or 75, as well as allowing magistrates appointments to be extended.

Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland QC MP commented: “Our judges, magistrates and coroners are world-renowned for their excellence, expertise and independence. It is right we hold on to them and do not cut off careers unnecessarily.”

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

He added:

“Raising the retirement age will mean we can retain their invaluable experience, while ensuring that judicial roles are open to a wider pool of talent. It will also make sure our courts and tribunals can continue to benefit from a world-class judiciary, as we emerge from the pandemic and beyond.”

The government says it will bring forward new legislation “as soon as parliamentary time allows” to make the change.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

13 Comments

DoubleYouTeaEff

This is a step in the WRONG direction.

(10)(25)

You are clueless

No it’s not. The courts are very understaffed. We need experienced judges.

(17)(2)

Anonymous

We need more younger judges too.

(9)(23)

Santa

Stop guaranteeing the jobs of the exceedingly wealthy.

(7)(25)

Anon

If only this had come in sooner.

Lord Neuberger could have had five more years, and we’d have been spared the tenure of Lady Hale PSC.

(52)(23)

Anon

Yes, and we could have had Dame Elizabeth Gloster in the SC.

(23)(1)

Anon

Part of the problem is with the pension changes only the very wealthy want to apply for the bench.

(2)(2)

Life is about enjoyment

Who wants to work until they’re 75

(14)(0)

Anon

Only men, predominently.

Which will, ironically, only increase the gender pay gap as women make the free choice to bow out early, just like Lady Black.

(4)(6)

Martin Routh

There is another way of looking at it: both Baroness Hale and Lady Arden were/are on preserved retirement ages of 75 because they took their first appointments before the downwards adjustment to 70 was introduced in the mid-90s. Had they not stayed on past 70, then they would not have been able to become President (in Hale’s case) or made it to the Supreme Court at all (in Arden’s case) by reason of having had to retire before then. Lady Black is one case and it’s dangerous to draw general conclusions from it; there are many judges male and female who have retired early for all sorts of reasons. Overall, a later retirement age is likely to be better for gender diversity because it will be more likely to build in tolerance for career breaks or taking judicial appointments later in life.

(7)(0)

Archibald Pomp O'City

Try “predominantly”, illiterate.

(0)(3)

Anon

‘Our…magistrates…are world-renowned for their excellence, expertise and independence’.

Say what? When did he last appear in front of magistrates? They have no concept of burden and standard of proof, or the rules of evidence. The magistrates’ courts are essentially kangaroo courts, a very long way indeed from expertise and excellence.

(25)(3)

Stating the obviousness

If you’re in your 70s that means you were a kid in the 1950s.

That’s a loooooooooooooooong time ago!

(3)(1)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories