LCJ Snubs International Judicial Wellbeing Pact: What’s Really Going?

when the Lord Chief Justice turns down a pact designed to protect judges’ wellbeing, it raises eyebrows- and questions. Why did this happen and what does it mean for the legal community?.

The international judicial wellbeing impact states that:

• Judicial wellbeing is essential and must be recognised and supported
• Judicial stress is not a weakness and must not be stigmatised
• Judicial wellbeing is a responsibility of individual judges and Judicial institutions
• Judicial wellbeing is supported by an ethical and inclusive judicial culture
• Promoting Judicial wellbeing requires a combination of awareness-raising, prevention and management activities:
• Judicial wellbeing initiatives mut suit the unique circumstances and requirements of national jurisdictions: and
• Judicial wellbeing is enhanced by human rights

Justice Rangajeeva Wimalasena, president of the Court of Appeal in Nauru is the driving force behind the act. Wimalasena saw several colleagues suffer anxiety and stress. When he became secretary of the Judicial Service Association, he organised performing arts sessions to help.

In 2021, Wimalasena attended a Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association conference. At the conference, Her honour judge Kalyani KC gave a speech about  how judicial bullying and other matters can cause a lot of stress on judicial officers. Wimalasena realised that this issue is more common than he thought.

Countries that are willing to sign are: Portugal, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati and Jamaica, Canada, Tuvalu, Nigeria, Ukraine and Singapore.

Baroness Carr of Walton – on-the-hill states that the declaration’s priorities and objectives ‘chime exactly’ with the work being done by the judiciary of England and Wales on wellbeing and support.

Baroness declares;

‘I mean, there are a couple of things to say. First of all, being a judge, particularly at the moment, is a stressful job, and there is no avoiding that. It’s difficult, and it’s stressful. The law can be difficult, and the subject matter can be sensitive and distressing, but we are, I think, working really hard at a new well-being strategy. We have a lot of support available for judges, not just critical incident support, but also helplines. We have nominated welfare judges. We have judicial associations. So it is really important,’.

What are the Pros and Cons of the Decision Made?

PROS

• Judicial Independence: By not signing an international pact, the UK judiciary retains full control over its own policies and practices, avoiding external influence on how it manages judicial wellbeing.
• Tailored Wellbeing Measures: The UK can develop wellbeing initiatives that are specific to the needs and circumstances of its own legal system, rather than following a one-size-fits-all approach.
• Preserving Tradition: The UK judiciary has a long-established framework and ethos. Rejecting the pact could be seen as maintaining those traditions and ensuring any changes align with the UK’s legal culture.

CONS

• Missed International Solidarity: By not signing the pact, the UK judiciary isolates itself from global efforts to improve judicial wellbeing, missing the chance to collaborate and share best practices.
• Public Perception: The decision might be seen as dismissive of the growing importance of mental health and wellbeing in high-pressure professions like the judiciary.

Pop Culture/Media Tie-In

The portrayal of judges in TV shows and films often highlights the intense pressure and burnout they face, making the LCJ’s decision to snub the judicial wellbeing pact even more significant.

Popular dramas like The Good Wife and Suits often feature judges who are under immense strain, struggling to balance impartiality with the emotional toll of their decisions. In these portrayals, the mental and physical health of legal professionals is often shown as an afterthought, yet it can dramatically influence the integrity of legal proceedings.

In the real world, when the LCJ rejects a pact aimed at addressing these challenges, it raises the question of whether judges in the UK, like their fictional counterparts, are being given enough support.

The decision may even prompt legal commentators and the public to rethink how the media’s portrayal of judicial burnout compares to the reality judges face behind the bench.

Is the LCJ’s position a reflection of broader issues within the justice system that we’ve yet to fully address — both in the courtroom and in the public eye?

Should judicial wellbeing be a priority, or is the LCJ right to focus elsewhere?

Comment your thoughts down below