Categories
Judiciary

What are Judges Lodgings ?

Judges Lodgings

The provision of judges’ lodgings is a longstanding feature of the British legal system, rooted in the medieval assize circuits.

For centuries, High Court judges have travelled from London to preside over serious criminal and civil cases in provincial courts. To uphold their independence and ensure their safety while away from home, successive governments have provided official residences.

The reason why lodgings, as distinct from hotels, are considered essential is that the judge must be provided, if necessary, with a high degree of personal security and privacy… It is absolutely vital for the administration of justice…”

Judges’ Lodgings – House of Lords Debate Wednesday 4 April 1973

These properties, often elegant historic buildings or carefully appointed townhouses, have offered judges a secure and dignified environment in which to carry out their duties.

This arrangement reflects a fundamental constitutional principle, that the judiciary must be protected from external influence and practical inconvenience so that justice may be administered impartially.

There is no fully up-to-date public official list of remaining permanent judges’ lodgings published by the Ministry of Justice after 2014–2015.

Many historic “Judges’ Lodgings” buildings (e.g., in York, Lancaster, Presteigne, Gloucester) are now museums or boutique hotels and are no longer used for active judicial accommodation.

Modern use Judges’ Lodgings

A reduced network of judges’ lodgings supports High Court judges when they sit on circuit. Permanent residences exist in major centres including Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Cardiff, Bristol and (occasionally) Swansea, with additional hotels or hired accommodation used as required. Judges may stay for several weeks at a time, benefiting from private living quarters, secure transport and facilities that allow them to prepare cases effectively in the evenings.

Spouses or civil partners are permitted to stay, sharing the same suite of accommodation. A weekly allowance (historically £310 per judge) covers food and drink for the judge, clerk and any accompanying spouse or partner.

While High Court judges use these lodgings, circuit and district judges more commonly rely on hotels or claim standard subsistence payments. The Ministry of Justice maintains that this system serves an important purpose, particularly in cases involving sensitive or high-profile matters where security and discretion are essential.

Judges’ Lodgings Cost

The financial cost of judges’ lodgings has been a recurring subject of parliamentary and public debate.

In 2000, parliamentary records showed that chauffeur-driven cars for judges at lodgings cost £557,066 in 1999–2000, with Birmingham having the highest annual car hire cost at £50,641. By 2009, High Court judges’ accommodation was reported to cost taxpayers more than £5 million a year.

More recent figures from a 2021 Freedom of Information request revealed that £8.7 million was spent over four years. The Swansea lodging attracted particular attention, averaging £2,727 per night in one period, largely due to a one-off £56,000 repair bill and variable occupancy. In 2013/14, running costs for 15 permanent lodgings totalled £2.8 million, with Leeds the most expensive at £363,642.

Critics argue that many lodgings are under-used for large parts of the year, representing poor value for taxpayers at a time when public spending is under pressure. They suggest that modern hotels could provide adequate alternatives at a lower cost.

The Case for Retention of Judges’ Lodgings

Supporters of the current arrangements emphasise considerations that extend beyond simple nightly rates. Security remains a primary concern: judges presiding over trials involving organised crime, terrorism or significant public interest require protection that standard hotels may not reliably guarantee. Equally important is the need for privacy. Judges must avoid unintended encounters with legal professionals, witnesses or members of the public that could give rise to any perception of bias.

Furthermore, the lodgings provide a suitable setting for focused work, with space for legal papers and quiet reflection which are conditions that contribute to the quality of judicial decision-making.

Successive reviews by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have concluded that, when all relevant factors are taken into account, the system represents a reasonable and necessary investment in the effective administration of justice.

Reforms and Efficiency Measures

Over the past two decades, significant steps have been taken to modernise the system. The number of permanent lodgings has been reduced (from 17 to 15 by 2015), with several properties sold or replaced by “pay as you go” hotel hires. Luxury elements have been curtailed.

In 2015, the Labour Party proposed the sale of the entire portfolio for an estimated £26 million, projecting annual savings approaching £3 million through greater reliance on hotel accommodation. Although not fully adopted, this proposal reflected a broader drive towards greater efficiency.

The Ministry of Justice continues to monitor usage and explore hybrid models that combine a smaller core of permanent residences with high-quality, secure hotel provision where appropriate.

The Future of Judges’ Lodgings

Judges’ lodgings illustrate a delicate balance within the justice system: the need to preserve judicial independence and dignity while demonstrating careful stewardship of public resources. As courts face ongoing pressures from case backlogs and budgetary constraints, further rationalisation appears likely.

A pragmatic approach of retaining select historic properties where they deliver clear value, while adopting flexible modern alternatives, may offer the most sustainable path. Ultimately, the purpose of these arrangements is not judicial comfort but the fair and effective delivery of justice across England and Wales.

Whether housed in grand surroundings or more modest settings, High Court judges must be supported in carrying out their vital constitutional role without distraction or compromise.

Any further decisions on the future of the remaining lodgings are likely to be made following internal reviews by the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chief Justice.

Can you Email a Judge ?
Dodgy Judges
Do Retired Judges Keep Their Title ?
Can you Buy a Judge ?

The High Court Judge that never was – His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence and the highly dubious 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 9th June 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