Talk:Thomas Bingham, Baron Bingham of Cornhill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

I removed a claim that as president of the supreme court, Bingham will again be subordinate to the "Lord Chief Justice" — how can a UK court be subordinate to an English one? Or will there be a new Lord Chief Justice of the UK? I can't find any reference to it in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Doops 05:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Constitutional Reform Act designates the Lord Chief Justice as the head of the entire judiciary,the Law Lords being only one part of the judiciary.It is the LCJ,not the head of the "higher" court,who replaces the Lord Chancellor as the senior judicial figure.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 14:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your promptness. A few points:
  • the Lord Chief Justice of Enlgand and Wales can only, naturally, be the head of the Judiciary of England and Wales. I don't think the new supreme court is part of that Judiciary, since it serves the entire UK!
  • even if, as an Englishman himself who is a judge, Lord Bingham is somehow a "part" of the English judiciary (while his supreme court colleagues from Scotland remain a "part" of the Scottish judiciary), what would it mean to say that he is subordinate to the Chief Justice? What actual authority would the LCJ have over him?
  • was his move from LCJ to Law Lord really "unprecedented"? I immagine it has probably occurred quite often, in fact. I mean, I don't know anything about it; but it would seem logical, certainly.
  • I removed the unfair and unencyclopedic reference to a "miscalculation."
Thanks. Doops 18:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The past career movement has been entirely in the Law Lord to LCJ direction,in the case of anyone holding both positions.(Lord Russell of Killowen in 1894,Lord Lane in 1980,made that move).As far as the current Government is concerned,they have no problem with the LCJ being the head of the judiciary.I gather he would control the Supreme Court's budget.As far as the "miscalculation" goes,I believe that Lord Bingham assumed that future reform would look at the judiciary and the role of the LCJ the way you do,and like you,he was wrong.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi. You still haven't explained the whole England/Wales vs. the-UK-as-a-whole thing. (We are talking about the LCJ for England & Wales, right? As I understand it, there's also an LCJ for Northern Ireland and a "president of the court of session" for Scotland.") Please point me to the section of the act which says that the new UK supreme court will somehow, bizarrely, be part of the English-and-Welsh judiciary. Doops 15:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain has ever since the Union been the seniormost figure in the UK judiciary,not just English (Wales being mentioned was,as noted in the article,an innovation of Lord Bingham,just as the title Lord Chief Justice of England rather than Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench was a sop to the vanity of Sir Edward Coke).His judicial primacy is transferred by the Blairite act to the Lord Chief Justice,not to the senior Law Lord,never mind that the Law Lords hear appeals from the LCJ's decisions.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 15:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again, could you please point me to a reference within the actual text of the act itself? Thanks. Doops 20:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Once again: could you please point to an actual citation within the act? Doops 06:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have removed references to Lord Bingham being junior to the Lord Chief Justice of Engalnd and Wales. As per Part 2, section 7, subsection 4 of the act, which does not list the new UK Supreme Court as a court being in the jurisdiction of the LCJ AdamCarden 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Bingham v. Thomas Bingham

I would like to know why is this page titled "Tom Bingham, Baron..." instead of "Thomas Bingham, Baron..." (currently a re-direction). It appears odd to me to use a nickname in a formal title (I would have accepted if this article is named outright as "Tom Bingham" without the peerage title), and the main page does refer to Lord Bingham's full title as "Thomas Bingham, Baron...". Does anyone know why? --Pkchan 12:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved. --Pkchan 14:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)