Talk:List of law life peerages

Anthony Clarke, Baron Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony

Is Lord Clarke (currently a Justice of the Supreme Court) missing? I believe he was appointed as a law life baron in May of 2009? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Trajanis: He was created a regular life peer under the 1958 Act.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Overlap with "List of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary"?

Aren't this list and List of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary essentially the same list? If my understanding is correct, all legal life peers appointed under the 1876 Act are Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and vice-versa. In that case, the two articles are really covering the same ground, though providing different details. Atchom 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Atchom: It looks like you had thought of this before me. How come you did not propose a merge?--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

These two lists contain different information about the very same people. A slightly wider table would be better than two separate articles. The Traditionalist (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Caveat to my initial remark. Lord Simon of Glaisdale was apparently made a life peer some months before he was made a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. The Gazette notice doesn't specify under which Act his peerage was created, but it seems to have been under the 1958 Act (Hansard doesn't mention the Appellate Jurisdiction Act at any rate). However, Simon was certainly a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, as opposed to a Lord of Appeal. It was always my understanding that in order to be a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary you got a law life peerage under the 1876 Act, but perhaps it was later amended? Would appreciate some input on this. Atchom (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So the legal situation seems to be as follows. The 1876 Act originally tied a law life peerage to law lord status. At some point down the line s. 6 was amended so that the possibility of appointing someone a law lord when he already had a peerage was acknowledged. Hence, there will be a few (I count 5) law lords whose peerages were created the 1958 Act and not the 1876 Act, and who consequently will not be on both lists. Also, the main Wikipedia article on this point is wrong, in that it says those peers who sit on cases are all unsalaried 'Lords of Appeal' instead of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. So no merger? Atchom (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That's no reason to have two lists. We only need one list, and that can indicate which judges already had a peerage. That would actually be more helpful, because at the moment if you wanted to know which judges were already peers you would have to compare both lists. Richard75 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete.