Categories
Judiciary

President of the King’s Bench Division

President of the Kings Bench Division

The President of the King’s Bench Division is a highly esteemed position in the United Kingdom’s judicial system.

The President of the King’s Bench Division (KBD) is responsible for the deployment and organisation of the work of the largest of the three High Court Divisions. At its full complement the King’s Bench Division has 71 High Court Judges and has the most varied jurisdiction. By the nature of the office the President is a judge of the Court of Appeal.

Current President of the King’s Bench Division

The current President of the King’s Bench Division is Dame Victoria Sharp DBE.

Dame Victoria succeeded Sir Brian Leveson and is the first woman to hold the position of President of the Queen’s Bench Division and subsequently is the first woman to hold the position of President of the King’s Bench Division.

History of the King’s Bench Division

The King’s Bench Division has a long and intricate history, tracing back to the time of William the Conqueror.

As established by the Magna Carta, the Royal Court (known as coram rege) had jurisdiction over cases heard before the king. These cases could be held anywhere the king was located, whether around the country or at Westminster. Over time, the King’s Bench became a central institution for legal proceedings, handling various matters.

The King’s Bench was merged into the High Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. After this merger, the King’s Bench became a division within the High Court.

Appointment

The Heads of Division are appointed by The King on the recommendation of a selection panel convened by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

The selection panel comprises the Lady Chief Justice as Chair, a nominee of the Lady Chief Justice, the Chair of the JAC, a lay member of the JAC and a nominee of the JAC Chair agreed with the Lady Chief Justice.

The panel reports to the Lord Chancellor, who can then accept the selection, reject it, or require the panel to reconsider. If practical the panel must consult the current holder of the office for which a selection is being made.

By law, candidates for the post must be qualified for appointment as a Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal or to be a judge of the Court of Appeal.

Check out our articles on Judiciary, Judges Salaries and Fees, President of the Family Division, HHJ Farquhar and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 27th July 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent