In depth: Judicial salary structure review cannot report soon enough

The Ministry of Justice has submitted evidence to the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) on judges’ pay for 2027/28. It is not good news for the bench.

The department told the board it can afford only a 2.3% pay rise for office-holders. The Consumer Prices Index rose by 3.6% in the year to September.

‘Having an effective and independent judiciary remains a key departmental priority,’ the MoJ insisted. ‘However, the department faces fiscal constraints and demand-led pressures across prisons, probation, courts and legal aid. This is alongside wider spending commitments, cost pressures and inflationary pressures.’

Any changes to judicial pay ‘must therefore be affordable, sustainable and deliver value for money, recognising that an award above the funded level would require trade-offs against other priorities across the justice system’.

With salaries ranging from £114,705 at the bottom end to £336,385 at the top, are judges entitled to grumble about a below-inflation pay rise? 

‘Although judicial salaries are certainly higher than the average wage for England and Wales, it is worth noting that a successful solicitor or barrister from a top firm or chambers can earn many times more than even a senior judge,’ HM Judiciary correctly notes on its website.

The judiciary may want to add an update and point out that some newly qualified City solicitors already earn more than district judges, who are paid £144,350.

Aligning pay with inflation would certainly help to address the judiciary’s recruitment and retention challenges. The ministry commissioned Dr Sophie Turenne of the University of Cambridge to probe what motivates applications for salaried judicial office.

'Fee-paid respondents contrasted the potential gains to be made each year with the probability that a judicial salary would remain relatively stagnant, without even a guarantee that pay rises would keep up with inflation'

Dr Sophie Turenne, University of Cambridge

A deputy district judge told Turenne: ‘Even if I’m earning a fairly steady level [of pay] now, I know that in 10 years it might be substantially more, whereas if I were to move into a full-time judicial post, that opportunity is gone and there will never be a significant increase… You don’t even get a guaranteed inflation-linked increase. There have been several years [of increase] where it’s been less than the rate of inflation… If you take that step, you know that at any stage you might have a government in power who says “actually, we’re just not going to raise judicial salaries for the next five years”, and your earning power decreases when you’re trying to do quite a serious, responsible job.’

Turenne concluded that the greater challenge lies not in comparing with present earnings, but with potential earnings.

‘For those in private practice, either as solicitors or barristers, there is often the sense that, as they approach their early forties, their most lucrative years are just about to come. Fee-paid respondents contrasted the potential gains to be made each year with the probability that a judicial salary would remain relatively stagnant, without even a guarantee that pay rises would keep up with inflation,’ Turenne said.

Pay, of course, is not the only factor making recruitment and retention tough. Working conditions and safety concerns have made a judge’s life less congenial. In particular, courtrooms are not always pleasant places to work.

The ministry told the SSRB that it is investing £216m in capital maintenance improvement projects and repair works for 2026/27, up from £148.5m allocated at the start of 2025/26. Works for 2026/27 include 40 roof works, 19 boiler replacements, 23 cooling and ventilation projects, 54 security-related projects and 48 works related to health and safety.

The SSRB can, of course, ignore the ministry’s pay suggestion.

The department told the 2026/27 pay review it could only afford a 2% pay rise, but the SSRB recommended 3.8%. Then lord chancellor David Lammy settled on 3.5%, telling MPs that going above the 2% affordability criterion ‘required tough choices within the department’s spending plans’.

That 3.5% pay rise, the ministry told the SSRB last week, saw the total bench wage bill climb from £830m in 2025/26 to £888m in 2026/27. Contributions to judicial pensions – among the best in the public sector – account for a third of the cost. 

The SSRB is in the final stages of a major review of the judicial pay structure. It is examining the extent to which pay is a factor in the attractiveness of judicial office and will deliver recommendations to help retain high-calibre judges. The SSRB received a whopping 2,893 responses to its call for evidence. These will take some sifting – a report is expected in the spring.