The manner of Britain’s exit from the European Union was decided by a golf enthusiast, a bellringer and an ex-banker, among others, who sit as judges on the U.K. Supreme Court.
Hearings ran for four days from Dec. 5 in what was by far the biggest case in the seven-year history of the court, and the first where all 11 judges sat together to hear arguments. On Jan. 24 they ruled that the Prime Minister Theresa May’s government must obtain authority from Parliament to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which begins the formal process of Brexit. She had proposed starting the process without a vote.
The case brought with it a level of scrutiny that’s rarely experienced by British judges, even those at the top of the profession.
Unlike in the U.S., judges on the U.K. Supreme Court aren’t household names. In fact, outside of legal circles, it’s hard to find someone who can name one.
Here’s a brief guide to the 11 justices who decided how the U.K. will begin Brexit.
The Ex-Banker
Lord David Neuberger, 68, president of the Supreme Court, studied chemistry and worked at merchant bank N. M. Rothschild & Sons in the 1970s before taking up law. A proud defender of judicial independence, he’s sparred with Theresa May before, when as Home Secretary she criticized judges for blocking extraditions. “I think attacking judges is not a sensible way to proceed,” he said in a 2013 interview.
In a speech earlier this year, he said it is vital for judges to protect citizens “against excesses of the executive,” but his views on Brexit remain inscrutable. “As a serving judge, it is not for me to comment either on whether these developments are good or bad,” he said about the referendum.
During the Brexit trial: After British lawmakers voted to approve a motion about the Brexit notice, Neuberger asked Miller’s lawyer, essentially, what’s the point of her case? “The average person in the street will think it seems odd if one says you have to go back to Parliament and have an act of Parliament passed to show what its will is, when you’ve already been to Parliament.’’
Decision: Parliament must vote