*/
© Shutterstock
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
I had completed pupillage when I began as a judicial assistant to Lord Lloyd-Jones, and I will be returning to practice at 11KBW this summer. Judicial assistants are junior barristers and solicitors, as well as those coming from academia. This makes our cohort a diverse group, and everyone has a different and interesting background. We share an open plan office on the top floor, near the Justices’ rooms. It is a collaborative and fun environment to work in – and I can escape to the library (a former Crown Court before it was renovated) when I need silence to concentrate.
A typical working day broadly falls into one of two categories. When an appeal is listed to be heard, I spend most of the day in court hearing oral submissions by counsel. To prepare for a hearing, I often draft a note setting out my views on the issues on appeal and whether the appeal should be allowed. I then attend a meeting with my Justice before and after the hearing to discuss the merits of the appeal. Judicial assistants sit behind their Justice, which provides a unique perspective. I have observed that the most effective advocacy is calm and measured, and that counsel appears confident when conversing with the Justices.
On days when there are no hearings my work can vary considerably. As a judicial assistant you work across the lifecycle of appeals – from applications for permission to appeal (PTA) to the handing down of judgments. We prepare bench memos summarising the key issues in each PTA and the decisions of the courts below. We then attend panel meetings of three Justices who decide whether to grant or refuse PTA. This is an opportunity to hear the Justices’ deliberations. After the Justices have reached a decision as to whether PTA should be granted, we are invited to express our views. The exercise of forming an opinion on PTA across a range of cases, and comparing that against the decision of three Justices, is an effective way of developing good judgement and an intuition for the cases in which the final court of appeal in the UK is interested.
Judicial assistants do not draft judgments, but we are sent iterations of draft judgments to provide comments. We may also conduct further research into points of law that are troubling our Justice. In this way, we contribute to the legal analysis in a judgment. This insight enables us to see how the parties’ written cases and oral submissions feed into a judgment. Once a judgment is finalised, judicial assistants draft the press summary. This is an exercise in punchy drafting and requires distilling the key legal principles into a clear and accessible three-page summary.
I most enjoy the diversity of cases which I work across as a judicial assistant. So far, I have worked on cases raising questions of state immunity, the Windsor Framework, freedom of speech, issue estoppel and the New York Convention. I was surprised that a significant portion of the court’s workload involves cases heard by the Privy Council. This introduces an international element to the work of a judicial assistant, as the Privy Council is the final court of appeal for many Commonwealth countries, as well as the UK’s overseas territories, Crown Dependencies, and military sovereign base areas. I have seen appeals ranging from the interpretation of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago to a private land dispute in Jamaica.
In short, there is no typical day in the life of being a judicial assistant at the Supreme Court. That is what makes the role engaging and unique.
I had completed pupillage when I began as a judicial assistant to Lord Lloyd-Jones, and I will be returning to practice at 11KBW this summer. Judicial assistants are junior barristers and solicitors, as well as those coming from academia. This makes our cohort a diverse group, and everyone has a different and interesting background. We share an open plan office on the top floor, near the Justices’ rooms. It is a collaborative and fun environment to work in – and I can escape to the library (a former Crown Court before it was renovated) when I need silence to concentrate.
A typical working day broadly falls into one of two categories. When an appeal is listed to be heard, I spend most of the day in court hearing oral submissions by counsel. To prepare for a hearing, I often draft a note setting out my views on the issues on appeal and whether the appeal should be allowed. I then attend a meeting with my Justice before and after the hearing to discuss the merits of the appeal. Judicial assistants sit behind their Justice, which provides a unique perspective. I have observed that the most effective advocacy is calm and measured, and that counsel appears confident when conversing with the Justices.
On days when there are no hearings my work can vary considerably. As a judicial assistant you work across the lifecycle of appeals – from applications for permission to appeal (PTA) to the handing down of judgments. We prepare bench memos summarising the key issues in each PTA and the decisions of the courts below. We then attend panel meetings of three Justices who decide whether to grant or refuse PTA. This is an opportunity to hear the Justices’ deliberations. After the Justices have reached a decision as to whether PTA should be granted, we are invited to express our views. The exercise of forming an opinion on PTA across a range of cases, and comparing that against the decision of three Justices, is an effective way of developing good judgement and an intuition for the cases in which the final court of appeal in the UK is interested.
Judicial assistants do not draft judgments, but we are sent iterations of draft judgments to provide comments. We may also conduct further research into points of law that are troubling our Justice. In this way, we contribute to the legal analysis in a judgment. This insight enables us to see how the parties’ written cases and oral submissions feed into a judgment. Once a judgment is finalised, judicial assistants draft the press summary. This is an exercise in punchy drafting and requires distilling the key legal principles into a clear and accessible three-page summary.
I most enjoy the diversity of cases which I work across as a judicial assistant. So far, I have worked on cases raising questions of state immunity, the Windsor Framework, freedom of speech, issue estoppel and the New York Convention. I was surprised that a significant portion of the court’s workload involves cases heard by the Privy Council. This introduces an international element to the work of a judicial assistant, as the Privy Council is the final court of appeal for many Commonwealth countries, as well as the UK’s overseas territories, Crown Dependencies, and military sovereign base areas. I have seen appeals ranging from the interpretation of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago to a private land dispute in Jamaica.
In short, there is no typical day in the life of being a judicial assistant at the Supreme Court. That is what makes the role engaging and unique.
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
Far-ranging month for the Chair of the Bar
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the most recent data on alcohol misuse in the UK, and the implications for alcohol testing in family proceedings
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how tailored financial planning can help barristers take control of their finances and plan with confidence
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office process fit for purpose? Women barristers’ experiences of bullying are not being reported or, if they are, they are not making it through the system, says Tana Adkin KC
Review by Daniel Barnett
Chair of the Bar reports back
The client’s best interests could be well-served by sharing the advocacy with junior counsel more often than you might think – Naomi Cunningham and Charlotte Eves explore some less orthodox ways to divide the speaking role