Judges ponder action over pensions
Judges are considering legal action to block an increase in their pension contributions.
The judges claim that the changes, which follow the 2010 Hutton report on public service pensions and come into force in April, would be unlawful and have set up an action group to fight them.
The lord chief justice, Lord Judge, has written to all members of the judiciary telling them about the potential challenge. Magic circle firm Clifford Chance would not comment on a report in The Times newspaper that it had been approached to obtain quotes for legal advice.
Judges’ salaries range from £103,000 to £240,000, less than many would receive by remaining in private practice. The pension package is touted as one of the factors that encourages judges to make the move.
At present salaried judges make no personal contribution to pensions which are among the most generous in the public sector.
The deal was negotiated by the former lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, on the grounds that judges are a special case because of their constitutional independence.
The change would require them to pay 1.28%. A spokesman for the judiciary said talks are ongoing.
Comments
Well, this will be
Well, this will be interesting.
Obviously no currently sitting judge could hear the case because no man may be a judge in his own cause. By definition, any judge who sits will be affected by the decision.
The argument that they could earn more in private practise won't wash, because otherwise they would BE in private practise.
It is a case of civil servants, who are already extremely well paid, whingeing because they will have to pay towards their generous pensions (paid for by the taxpayer). Most taxpayers do not get as well paid (most lawyers don't, in fact) or get such generous pensions.
This is a move entirely lacking in, dare one say it, "judgement". Judges are already seen as out of touch-they will now be seen as greedy and money-grubbing. So much for the justice system!
Not all judges are members of the pension scheme
Actually, some judges could hear the case - only salaried judiciary can be members. Fee-paid cannot join (subject of a different case in Europe - O'Brien) so they could hear the first hearing, but not the appeal.
I have to say as a member of the judiciary, I'm not very comfortable with the idea we shouldn't contribute at all. Private pensions and occupational pensions often require an element of contribution. If it's the pay cut argument, then perhaps the contributions could be phased in with pay rises? Even that perhaps is too much in the current climate.