The Garrick Club and “What All the Fuss Is About” – Hidden Networking, Entrenched Misogyny and Secret Politics

Article by Sydney Kowalczyk

The author of Winnie-the-Pooh, A.A. Milne, left the rights to his books to four beneficiaries, the Garrick Club being one of them. The Garrick went on to sell its interest in the estate to Disney for a significant sum. This wealthy institution consists of high-profile members who make decisions that affect our justice system, politics, security, media, and the arts. Women are welcome only as secretaries, waitresses, cleaners or guests (since 2010) – never as members. In March 2024, The Guardian leaked the Club’s membership list, which re-sparked debates as to whether this institution can be justified in the name of tradition and ‘freedom of association’ or whether it is too outdated and problematic to continue in its current form. If so, I would argue a possible solution would be to either allow women to join or to pressure, shame and sue members into leaving.

According to its founders, the Garrick is a men-only private club where “actors and men of refinement and education might meet on equal terms”. It was founded in 1831, particularly for actors who were, back then, not deemed respectable members of society. Being a private club, the Garrick can legally exclude women if they choose to. This 19th-century mindset of excluding women from political and business discussions was not unusual back when women were not working as part of the judiciary or sitting in Parliament. However, since the 1960s, the club has faced harsh criticism over the requirements for male-only entry. Being a member seems to be tantamount to agreeing with its policies, which no longer fit modern societal values. The membership resignations of Simon Case and Richard Moore following their names being published demonstrate that being exposed as upholding policies (by being a member) counter to the ones they were trying to uphold in their profession undermines the public’s trust in professionals.

Simon Case, Head of the Civil Service, attempted to justify his membership by explaining that he was trying to “make the change from within”. However, this comment has not been well received by the public since not much change has been made since it was first established almost 200 years ago. Similarly, Richard Moore, the Head of M16, was confronted with an internal revolt from many women in the Secret Intelligence Service. These women voicing their disappointment over his membership was significant because the service was trying to attract more female staff to increase diversity. Their membership ultimately undermined a lot of the progress that their sectors were making.

Many defenders of this gentlemen’s club argue that there are many female-only organisations and that not respecting the exclusion of women from their clubs would create a double standard. A double standard is created when different rules are applied to different situations which are, in principle, the same. Of course, men can have men-only clubs, and women can have women-only clubs – this is not the issue. The issue is when a group of men gather together and secretly gift each other job opportunities in positions of power which are not then extended to women, effectively excluding women from positions of power.  Let’s take The Women’s Institute as an example; it is not made up of highly influential people in charge of our country who can gain influential job opportunities by virtue of being a member, the way the Garrick Club is. The Women’s Institute does not prohibit the progress of men by excluding them from their membership, as the Garrick Club does to women. Therefore, it is not a double standard since these two organisations are incomparable. Safe spaces for women usually aim to redress an imbalance, rather than expressly perpetuating and entrenching inequalities (as seen with many gentlemen’s clubs).

The purpose of the Garrick is to gatekeep social mobility by keeping the networking within the club away from women and other underrepresented groups. Lady Hale brought up the fact that “they wouldn’t dream of being members of a club that excluded people from ethnic minorities [or] a club that excluded gays”. Members include Bishops, partners at “magic circle” law firms, King Charles, and many more – these men are not representative of the society at large. Their membership puts them even more out of touch with the wider issues in our society (ranging from lack of affordable childcare to excessive NHS waiting lists and even to job seekers being subjected to fake interviews or struggling with repayment of student loans).

Some defenders of the Garrick insist that it is filled with elderly and retired men who no longer influence society. This is simply not true because many members are still in influential positions of high importance. We know from the membership list that there are men at the peak of their careers and men who, yes, are retired but who facilitate privileged connections to others within the club, nonetheless.

To determine if this club is granting professional progression, such as selection bias among judges, it must first be confirmed that the Garrick is a professional space. Garrick’s rulebook prohibits using the club for work, “which includes discussing business matters”, but members did admit this did happen, and it would be naïve to assume otherwise. The club is a networking venue; bonds are deepened between members (many of whom are in business or politics); during the dinners, for example, the line between work and leisure is blurred. It is very trustful to assume that connections are not being made, favours are not exchanged, and old ties are not strengthened. The relationships they establish and nurture extend into their professional lives – that is, networking. It seems unlikely that the judiciary could become more representative and diverse without changing symbolic institutions like the Garrick.

The introduction of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 enabled women to work in the legal profession. Yet, despite the passing of this Act, many legal clubs and societies kept their sex-based disqualification rules. Having said that, a recent legal opinion has been published asserting that the Garrick Club’s rules do not explicitly preclude women from joining. Despite this, in 2015, the members voted to admit women by a 50.5 per cent majority; this fell below the two-thirds threshold. This result demonstrated their lack of willingness to admit women into their club; hence, in practical and symbolic terms, they refused to engage them in critical debates and decisions. They are determined to preserve their traditional values at the expense of overlooking some of the brightest women in our society. I would argue it is not a men-only space because business, politics, and the law are areas where women deserve a say. 

The Garrick excluding women in the name of tradition does not seem plausible, especially after numerous members resigned – in panic – after their names were leaked. It is not just criticised because it excludes women but also for its broader lack of diversity; elitism and nepotism are clearly present. Becoming a member is a complex and selective process, with a long waiting list. If the rules were solely concerned with creating a single-sex space, they would let any man in. Therefore, the issue with the Garrick and its policies is arguably more centred around unfair advantage than misogyny.

Another common argument favouring excluding women is everyone’s right to ‘freedom of assembly and association’, per Article 11 of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). EHRC was established by the Equality Act 2006, which means that people have a protected right to be part of ‘associations’ such as clubs or societies. However, Article 10 EHRC is an equally recognised right, ‘freedom of expression’. Lord Sumption can meet up with his fellow Garrick members, and Lady Hale can openly criticise this association.

Jonathan Sumption, a former justice in the Supreme Court and a Garrick member, said that “the whole issue is too unimportant to make a fuss of”. The fact that Mr Case was questioned regarding his membership in a Parliamentary Hearing or that highly influential people like Lord Neuberger, a former President of the Supreme Court, are members emphasises the power of having a membership. Benedict Cumberbatch, a famous actor and self-proclaimed feminist, being a member of an institutionally sexist club does not make him appear feministic. If the issue truly is “unimportant,” it would not instigate such a reaction from the press, the public, or the members themselves. In February 2024, Colin Brough was expelled from the club after he sent his fellow members unsolicited emails expressing that women should be allowed to join immediately. Similarly, when Joanna Lumley, an actress, was nominated by a member, the page on which Lumley’s nomination was written was torn out, and expletives were written upon it. This indicates that trying to “make the change from within” is not an efficient solution.

Many people grew distrustful of the judiciary and the police over the years. A public inquiry into the Undercover Policing (the ‘spy cops’ scandal) being chaired by Sir John Mitting, a High Court judge, sparked outrage. The scandal is centred around undercover officers who joined a political group and pretended to be activists; they then formed long-term sexual relationships with women without disclosing their true identities. This aimed to collect information about the campaigners and their protests and report their findings back to their higher-ups. To infiltrate these groups, they routinely stole the identities of dead children so that they were issued with documents to make their new personas appear credible. Deception is a key issue in the inquiry, with concerns regarding human rights violations in addition to sexual abuse. Sir John Mitting is not only a controversial pick because he is a member of the Garrick but also due to his judgements. The Supreme Court upheld an appeal that challenged his controversial ruling in the case of Stocker v Stocker [2016]. In this case, Mitting ruled that Ms Stocker was guilty of defamation after she tried to alert her abusive ex-husband’s new partner, who was at risk of violence from him. In his ruling, he completely misinterpreted the law to silence Ms Stocker for speaking out against a male abuser. The general consensus is that he cannot be trusted to preside over an investigation with a focal point of discrimination against women.

Some argue that judges who are members of the Garrick should not be presiding over cases to do with violence against women (sexual offences, domestic violence, sex discrimination). This is because they lost their appearance of being impartial, if not the ability to be. A possible remedy is transparency, asking a judge whether he is a member of the Garrick and, if so, to recuse himself. This is because judges are in a position to guide the jury and determine outcomes; senior judges shape the law. The judge is trusted to provide the jury with guidance to avoid a decision being influenced by rape myths, such as the ‘perfect victim’ narrative, which blames women for men’s sexual assaults committed against them, leading to an unjust outcome. If a judge feeds into these myths, sexual offences are trivialised, abuse is excused, and discrimination concerns are dismissed.

In fact, an open letter recently circulated that reminded legal professionals that the judiciary must act fairly when carrying out its judicial functions and that “these principles should also be reflected in conduct outside court” because it should never act in a way that may lead to “reduced respect for judicial office or cast doubt on their independence, impartiality or integrity.”

Sir John Mitting is not just some anomaly to disregard; many judges are members of the Garrick. Charlotte Proudman, a family lawyer, accused the judge, a Garrick member, in charge of her domestic abuse case of downplaying the abuse her client has been subjected to by her ex-husband. Ironically, she is being investigated by the Bar Standards Board and could potentially lose her licence for a year or be ordered to pay a fine. The disciplinary proceedings were launched after she voiced that she does not “accept the judge’s reasoning” and is concerned that “this judgment has echoes of the ‘boys’ club’. The ‘boys’ club’ mentality refers to both overt and unconscious male bias which impacts professional dynamics in a way that men have an advantage over women when interacting with powerful men. Subsequently, an open letter from several high-profile supporters and female activists was sent to the Bar Standards Board saying that by being granted five charges, she was “targeted unfairly by those in power to silence dissent and maintain control”. The letter also asserted that the board launching disciplinary proceedings in reaction to Proudman’s concerns “undermine the principles of free speech and accountability by tamping down criticism”. Further, they pointed out that “an individual who has been critical of the judicial treatment of women is being bullied by the very institution publicly claiming to end it.” It seems that being a Garrick member is a symptom of wider issues deeply ingrained in our society.

The Bar Standards Board is responsible for publishing a code of conduct for barristers. It states that practitioners “must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in [them] or the profession”. In the USA, judges are subjected to a Code of Conduct that states that they cannot hold membership in any club or organisation that discriminates based on protected characteristics. Adopting a similar approach could win back the public’s confidence in our legal system.

In Lady Hale’s words, many people “don’t see what all the fuss is about”. This is why, in my article, I decided to highlight some problematic aspects of the Garrick Club rather than solely focus on the gender divide. There are valid reasons why this club faces ongoing criticism, high-profile resignations and backlash from female counterparts in their professions. The levers of power are in the hands of the Garrick members, yet they are not democratically elected; there is a lack of scrutiny by a separate body. Until March 2024, we were not even aware of their identities. The visible discomfort of these men named as members of the media illustrates that a lot is going on behind closed doors, and we are entitled to answers.