Most judges in England and Wales are selected from among practising lawyers. The Lord Chancellor's main duties in terms of judicial and tribunal appointments are:
In addition, the Lord Chancellor is responsible for recommending to the Queen those barristers and solicitors who are suitable for appointment as Queen's Counsel. In 2002 there were 429 applicants, with 113 appointed.
To assist him in his work, the Lord Chancellor has a team of officials within the Department who gather information about candidates and interview them. It is important that judges are appointed wholly on merit and through a system which is fair and in which the public has confidence. Once appointed, the independence of the judiciary is paramount.
As Head of the Judiciary the Lord Chancellor also exercises a disciplinary role in order to ensure that all judges, members of tribunals and lay magistrates uphold the high standard of conduct the public expects.
Since taking up office in May 1997, the Lord Chancellor has carried out a measured programme of change. Many of the changes and improvements have been to promote equality of opportunity and greater diversity, and to aid career development of judicial post holders. Among the most important developments has been the creation of a Commission for Judicial Appointments and a pilot assessment centre for the appointment competitions for deputy district judges (both civil and magistrates) and deputy Queen's Bench Masters.
It is vital that the judicial appointments process identifies the most talented people for appointment as judges, irrespective of their professional or social background. The Lord Chancellor aspires to a Bench that is more reflective of society in all its diversity. That does not mean that the judiciary must be literally 'representative' of society in order to create a strict statistical match. However, we would expect to see more women and people from minority ethnic communities being appointed as increasing numbers of practitioners from these groups reach the stage in their professional lives where appointment as a judge becomes a real prospect. We therefore actively encourage applications from under-represented groups such as women, members of minority ethnic communities and disabled people (SDA 35).
In April 2002, in a move to encourage more applications from these under-represented groups, the Lord Chancellor removed most of the age limits that defined eligibility for judicial appointments for which he is responsible. He also raised the retirement age for fee-paid judicial officers. He considered that lower age limits were no longer necessary as the statutory rights of audience would ensure that candidates had the necessary experience and maturity required for judicial office.
Ministers and officials from the Department have attended several events across the country during the year to encourage applications from those who might be reluctant to apply. We are now planning a series of events for 2003-04, including many organised with the Bar Council and the Law Society, aimed at encouraging women, disabled and minority ethnic lawyers to apply. LCD supported the Women and Equality Unit at the Cabinet Office throughout 2002 at events to encourage women to apply for public appointments, including lay judicial appointments. Rosie Winterton MP, Parliamentary Secretary in the LCD, addressed one such event in Leeds in May 2002. At these events we show a video, All Rise, which explains the application process and the current selection procedures.
The Lord Chancellor is aware that for a variety of reasons, some practitioners do not have the same opportunities as the majority to gain the experience necessary to develop fully their professional expertise and so achieve their full potential. He therefore introduced a scheme allowing candidates to submit a statement regarding factors affecting their career progression when applying for part-time legal appointments. We provide information about the scheme in judicial appointments literature and at the events.
We have run a work shadowing scheme since March 1999. The feedback we receive and the numbers of people taking part show that it continues to be very successful. The scheme allows lawyers to find out what it is like to sit judicially, with either a district judge or circuit judge, before deciding whether to apply. So far in 2002-03, we have received 60 applications. We have also run a pilot Magistrates' Shadowing Scheme in seven areas for people from ethnic minorities to assess for themselves how the magistrates' court system works.
Last year we published figures showing the projected number of women lawyers who might be appointed to some of the main judicial posts and to Queen's Counsel in 2005 and 2010 (SDA 36). We have reviewed last year's figures and these show that we are making good progress against these projections. Tables 1 and 2 give the full picture of progress on the appointment of female and ethnic minority judicial officers.
There has been a steady increase in the percentage of women appointed since 1998-99, when the Lord Chancellor published his first Annual Report on Judicial Appointments, as illustrated in Table 3. The table also shows the proportion of minority ethnic appointments over the same period. The proportion dropped in 1999-2000, but has risen steadily since then.
Table 1: Percentage of female judicial appointments
| Deputy District Judge | Recorder | District Judge | Circuit Judge | Queen's Counsel | |
| Performance in 2001-2002 | 35% | 20% | 50%1 | 25% | 10.6% |
| Projections for 2005 | 38% | 20% | 38% | 20% | 17% |
| Projections for 2010 | 42% | 24% | 45% | 25% | 20% |
Table 2: Percentage of ethnic minority judicial appointments
| Deputy District Judge | Recorder | Queen's Counsel | |
| Performance in 2001-2002 | 5.4% | 1% | 6% |
| Projections for 2005 | 6% | 5% | 6.5% |
| Projections for 2010 | 10% | 8% | 7% |
Table 3: Proportion of women and ethnic minority judicial appointments since 1998
Assessment centres can offer candidates a better opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for appointment than in an interview alone. We have piloted a one-day assessment centre in the competitions for the appointment of Deputy District Judges (county courts), Deputy District Judges (magistrates' courts) and Deputy Queen's Bench Masters (High Court) in 2002.
At our assessment centres we asked the selected applicants to participate in a range of tests including a practical exercise (role play), a written case study, a test of legal knowledge and an interview. All activities were custom designed to test applicants against the competences required for the post. We also ensured that all arrangements supported the principle of equal opportunity and diversity and did not unfairly discriminate against or disadvantage any applicant.
The pilot assessment centres are currently being evaluated and once the results are known the Lord Chancellor will consider whether to introduce this approach more widely.
For the judicial system to operate effectively, we must appoint enough suitably qualified people.
| Target To appoint or recommend for appointment sufficient numbers of judges and tribunal members to deliver Court Service plans and meet requests from other departments, and ensure that 95% of the target number of lay magistrates are in post by 2003 (SDA 38). |
The Judicial Appointments Annual Report 2001-02 provides information about applications, interviews and appointments from the competitions that year. Our Department's Legal and Judicial Services Group responds to Court Service and other government departments' anticipated needs for judicial office holders. We are improving our collection of information about vacancies and appointments to measure our progress against this target.
We are meeting the demand for judiciary to sit in most courts and tribunals.
In March 2003 the first formal interviews under the Regional Boards pilot are due to take place. This is designed to bring the interviews for judicial appointment nearer to the locations where candidates are likely to be appointed. For most, this should make the experience less time-consuming and reduce their travelling costs.
We continue to face problems filling all the vacancies for medical members of the Mental Health Review Tribunals, despite measures taken in conjunction with the Department of Health to improve the recruitment of doctors. These included extended contract arrangements and ad hoc recruitment panels. We are advertising vacancies more widely and are working with the Department of Health to target Commonwealth countries for suitably qualified applicants. We have also raised the retirement age for these tribunal members to 70. We also had discussions with the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the shortage of medical members and this has led to a special recruitment round using the College's database of those eligible. This has led to 53 applications which might not otherwise have been identified. In September 2001 the Lord Chancellor appointed a Liaison Judge for the Mental Health Review Tribunals. The current post holder is His Honour Judge Sycamore.
As of 31 December 2002 we had filled 94.5% of magistrates' posts that Advisory Committees were seeking to fill, against our target of 95%. In the previous year we only filled 82%. The increase follows work within Legal and Judicial Services Group and on behalf of the Advisory Committees in determining both the ideal number of magistrates for a particular bench and, within that, the target number to appoint in any one year. In many cases in the past, the figures reported to us were unrealistic. We will continue our work into 2003-04 to ensure that Committees set realistic targets.
The Commission for Judicial Appointments provides an independent mechanism for applicants for judicial office who feel that their candidacy has not been considered fairly.
The Lord Chancellor welcomed the Commissioners' first Annual Report, which was published in October 2002. He said that some of the areas of concern that it identified had already been addressed, and that he and his Department would work with the Commission to identify where and how further improvements might be made.
The number of complaints received and investigated by the Commission so far has been quite small in comparison with the volume of applications for appointment. We will monitor the nature of complaints in the interests of defining good practice and improving the appointments process, and we will review and implement the changes with regard to any agreed recommendations made by the Commission (SDA 37-01).
To read documents in 
format you will need a copy of the freely available Adobe
Acrobat Reader.