It is of great interest that Britain's judges have set up a fund to ask the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for a "ruling that government plans to force (them) to make a contribution to their pensions are flawed."
As your Star Comment (M Star March 20) says, this particular "judicial fighting fund" appears inequitable since the vast majority of people at work, where they have pension provision at all, have to contribute to it whether it be an occupational pension or a personal pension, earnings related or "money purchase."
This particular group of state employees appear to be assuming a privileged position that no one else has. Justice is important but so are, for example, health, welfare and security.
I wonder whether Sir Matthew Hale, who was Chief Justice of the King's Bench from 1671 to 1676, would have approved of this aspect of our current judges' behaviour.
He wrote a list of points of best practice for judges, Things Necessary To Be Continually Had In Remembrance, the tenth point of which was: "That I be not biased with compassion to the poor, or favour to the rich in point of justice."
I think Sir Matthew, were he alive today, would think that a 50 per cent non-contributory pension on a salary of £196,707 per year for a Court of Appeal judge would tend to make our judges likely to favour the rich to too great an extent.