I helped force the Garrick Club to admit women members – here’s where must be next

Victory is sweet, writes barrister Charlotte Proudman – but the Garrick now needs to put its money where its mouth is (and so do other clubs). How many women will be ‘invited’ to become members? And where’s my invitation...?

We were relegated to the steps because the Garrick closed its iron gates to women and refused us entry to deliver a letter. We had to ask a man to deliver it for us. Oh, the irony! (Charlotte Proudman)

It took 193 years for the all-male Garrick Club to open its doors to equality and allow women to become equal members.

The vote was finally passed with 59.98 per cent of votes in favour, at the end of a private meeting where several hundred members spent two hours debating whether to permit women to join.

The decision was, in large part, due to a technical reading of a rule: the 1925 Law of Property Act advises that in legal documents, “he” should also be read to mean “she”. Of course, no women were in the room and 375 male members wanted women to remain locked out of power. But while I welcome women becoming members, the Garrick will now be judged by action. How many women will be “invited” to become members? I would love to be invited...

When women talk about having a seat at the table and a key to the door, they mean being treated as equal members of places where women have historically been excluded. The Garrick Club symbolises the male establishment and the concentration of power in the hands of the select male few: the King, the deputy prime minister, senior judges, leading lawyers, 10 MPs, dozens of members of the House of Lords.

Two earlier votes in the Garrick saw women refused the right to join. As a campaigner for gender equality and a barrister, I have long believed that being a member of a “boys’ club” is incompatible with judicial principles of equality, fairness and justice. It was disappointing to read the former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption say he wouldn’t resign his membership if women were not admitted.

As Emmeline Pankhurst once said, “deeds not words”. So, we picked up our placards and stood alongside our sisters outside the club in the cold and rain. Apsana Begum MP held a banner saying, “Let Women In!”, while other women held placards saying, “Judges of quality support equality” and “No more boys’ club in justice”.

We were relegated to the steps because the Garrick closed its iron gates to women and refused us entry to deliver a letter. We had to ask a man to deliver it for us. Oh, the irony!

We’ve been metaphorically banging on the door for years. In 2015, Baroness Hale criticised membership of the Garrick Club by those in the judiciary, calling it “shocking”. Emily Bendell organised an open letter in 2020, calling for an end to the all-male membership. Last year, Dinah Rose KC noted that membership by the judiciary caused “persistent unease within the profession”.

This year, Helen Mountfield KC said: “I would not feel that a client of mine was getting a fair hearing in a case concerning sex discrimination which was heard by a judge who was a member of the Garrick Club.” The Bar Council warned that membership in exclusive male-only clubs risked selection bias for judges. Karon Monaghan KC suggested that Garrick Club judges should consider recusal from sex discrimination cases. Her words were almost prophetic.

How can we have confidence in judges who are members of institutions that exclude women and treat them as second-class citizens? It’s for that very reason that I co-organised a letter signed by over 100 lawyers and legal professionals calling for judges to resign their membership of the Garrick Club.

We wrote: “We are concerned that membership perpetuates systemic discrimination against women within the highest echelons of societal influence. In our collective assessment, maintaining membership at the Garrick Club is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of justice, equality, and fairness, particularly for senior members of the judiciary who significantly shape jurisprudence on gender-based discrimination and inequality and gendered crimes of violence and abuse.”

After the public embarrassment, four judges publicly resigned from the sexist club – good.

Sexist institutions not only tarnish the reputation of their members but also cast a shadow over their workplaces and their real commitment to gender equality. Two judges were recused from cases, in part, due to their membership of the Garrick Club.

I am subject to disciplinary action by my barrister regulatory body for a series of tweets criticising a domestic abuse judgment by Sir Jonathan Cohen who is a member of the Garrick Club. One of my tweets read, “I do not accept the judge’s reasoning…” In an incredible turn of events, the judge hearing my disciplinary case, Philip Havers KC was a member of the same “boys’ club” (and the same school, Eton College) as Sir Jonathan. I successfully applied to have Mr Havers recused and replaced by another judge because of a perception of bias.

Last month, I represented a complainant of rape who applied to have Sir Jonathan removed from her case because he is a member of the all-male Garrick Club. Her ex-husband went to the club and his former employer was a member. She said, “The fair-minded and informed observer, having considered these facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias should Sir Jonathan determine the appeal.” She was right. Sir Jonathan was recused from her appeal and replaced by Ms Justice Henke.

In 2024, it took several open letters from senior lawyers and part-time judges, a protest and two successful recusal applications of judges to show that being a member of a gender-discriminatory institution is incompatible with equality. We should be able to trust our judges to uphold the rule of law.

It’s because of institutions such as the Garrick – and men who want to keep women out – that we don’t have gender equality and diversity among judges. We have had enough of platitudes and cheap equality events. We want meaningful change from within. Until we have that, let’s not pretend we live in a meritocracy.

While the spotlight is on the Garrick, many other discriminatory institutions exist in the heart of London – Whites, Travellers, Saville, Beefsteak, Buck’s Club, to name just a few (I have the full list).

If members of the Garrick were not named, they would have happily continued their fine dining and networking, rubbing shoulders with the rich and powerful and promoting their male friends above women. It was only the shame of public exposure that caused resignations that in turn triggered this vote.

We are giving notice to other men who belong to discriminatory institutions that misogyny is under public scrutiny so they should change their rules and behaviour now to avoid further humiliation. The journey towards equality is far from over.