Judicial Appointments Annual Report 2003-2004
October 2004
Part One
Part Two
Foreword
I
am pleased to present this, the sixth Judicial Appointments Annual Report
covering appointments and developments during 2003-2004. This was my first
year with responsibility for judicial appointments. I have continued the
work of opening up the judicial appointments procedures and embracing greater
diversity in the system, whilst keeping our focus on the quality of judges
we appoint. I am particularly proud that during this period we saw an increase
in the figures for the percentage of judicial officeholders appointed from
minority ethnic backgrounds and maintained a consistency in the numbers
of women appointed. The recent appointment of Linda Dobbs QC as a High Court
judge is a clear sign that the steps we have been taking to increase diversity
in the judiciary are starting to make a real impact.
This period also saw, following on from a fruitful consultation process,
the introduction of the Constitutional Reform Bill. The wide-ranging reforms
set out in the Bill include the setting up of the Supreme Court and a new
Judicial Appointments Commission.
The shape and nature of the proposed Commission was decided in close co-operation
with the Lord Chief Justice, and was set out in a wide-ranging concordat
on the future of the judiciary which I reached with him earlier this year.
We share the aim of a more open, transparent and accountable system for
appointments which withstands scrutiny for selection on merit alone, and
we agree on the principle of separation of the executive from the processes
leading to the recommendation of candidates for the judiciary. This co-operation
has formed the backdrop of the considerable change and activity that has
taken place over the last year.
A total of 480 appointments were made in the courts and tribunals during
the period from around 3000 applications. In addition, 1768 people were appointed
as magistrates on the advice of local advisory committees (including appointments
made by the Duchy of Lancaster). This activity took place alongside significant
reform to the processes for the majority of appointments that I make. Following
the successful pilot of Assessment Centres for deputy district judge appointments
during the last period, these are now in operation for all deputy district
judge appointments, and all the indications are that they are successful
both in terms of outcomes and in terms of encouraging greater diversity.
We have worked closely during this period with the judiciary on proposals
for improvements to judicial appointments. The implementation of these changes
over the coming year will help to improve the quality and openness of the
processes that we have, as we work towards handing over a quality system
of appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission.
The 2002-2003 annual report set out details of the last Silk round. The
Bar Council and Law Society are working closely with DCA officials and consultants
on the development of a new interim selection process for Queen's Counsel
with demonstrably greater standards of openness, fairness and diversity.
The professions plan to invite the first applications under the new scheme
at the end of 2004.
One of my priorities is to increase the diversity of the judiciary by encouraging
good quality candidates from ethnic minorities, women and candidates with
disabilities to apply to the Bench. We need to find out why eligible people
from these groups are not applying for judicial appointments in the numbers
we might expect and we need to do something about removing the barriers.
At the same time, we must ensure that there is no dilution of the principle
of appointment on merit. I have published, earlier this month, a wide-ranging
consultation paper on this issue, which invites comments and suggestions
about how we can improve the current system so that a more diverse range
of candidates feel able to apply. I am determined to make progress ahead
of the arrival of the Judicial Appointments Commission. I expect to announce
a short, medium and longer-term programme for significant change next spring.
I have great pride in the fact that our judiciary remains the envy of
the world, and this is, of course, down to the outstanding quality of our
judges. But the judiciary must also reflect the society it serves. This
report shows my continuing determination, in partnership with the judiciary,
to develop a modern appointments system that will deliver both the quality
and the diversity of judiciary that our society needs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor
October 2004
Scope of this report
- This is the sixth Judicial Appointments Annual Report. It sets out details
of:
- the proposals for the Judicial Appointments Commission and Judicial
Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman;
- the work of the Commission for Judicial Appointments;
- developments to judicial appointments processes;
- steps taken to encourage greater diversity within the judiciary;
and
- developments to processes for selection for Queen's Counsel.
- The Lord Chancellor has the responsibility for the appointment, or for
advising The Queen on the appointment, of virtually all members of the
professional judiciary in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and some
office holders whose jurisdiction extends also to Scotland. The Queen
makes the most senior appointments on the recommendation of the Prime
Minister who, in turn, makes his recommendation to her on the advice of
the Lord Chancellor. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is assisted
in this work by the staff of Legal and Judicial Services Group at the
Department for Constitutional Affairs.
- Unlike previous reports, this year's report does not set out detailed
results of each competition undertaken. These are set out separately on
the DCA website (www.dca.gov.uk) for court appointments, tribunal appointments
and lay magistrates' appointments. Annex A to this report sets out the
list of all the competitions run in this period, for which detailed statistics
are available on the DCA website.
Proposals for a new Judicial Appointments Commission and Judicial Appointments
and Conduct Ombudsman
- In June 2003 the Prime Minister announced a package of constitutional
reforms including the formation of a Judicial Appointments Commission.
The Constitutional Reform Bill currently before Parliament provides for
a fully independent and expert Commission, responsible for the process
of selecting candidates for appointment, with a carefully balanced role
for the executive and the judiciary.
Why do we need a Judicial Appointments Commission?
- The creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission provides the opportunity
to make the system of judicial appointments both more open and more efficient.
It will remove from the executive the day to day responsibility for selecting
candidates for appointments and will reduce ministerial discretion. It
will ensure that recruitment expertise and the expertise of the judiciary
can be combined to run a system that continues to deliver judges of the
highest quality and that can inspire confidence.
- One of the key areas in which it is intended the Commission will provide
improvements is the diversity of the bench. In this respect it will build
on the work currently being carried out in the Department, and referred
to in paragraph 37 of this report. It will also demonstrate best practice
in recruitment and will be tasked with making every effort to attract
qualified candidates from those groups that are currently under represented
in the judiciary.
The Process
- The process for appointments' in the future forms a central part of
the agreement, known as the Concordat, which has been agreed by the Secretary
of State and Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary. The key features
of the process under the Concordat will be :
- appointments must continue to be made solely on merit;
- the Commission should be entirely responsible for assessing the
merit of candidates and selecting candidates for appointment;
- no candidate can be appointed unless recommended by the Commission;
- the Commission should be required to consult the Lord Chief Justice,
and another judge with relevant experience before recommending a candidate
for appointment; and
- the Secretary of State should have a role in the final decision,
but that role should be restricted so as to prevent any considerations
other than merit playing a part in the appointment decision.
- It is intended that the Secretary of State will have limited power in
relation to each recommendation for appointment. He will be able to reject
a candidate once, or ask the Commission to reconsider once and in doing
so, he must provide reasons which will provide a careful set of checks
and balances. It will prevent the Commission from putting up a candidate
who is unsuitable for a post, while ensuring that the Secretary of State
can never select a candidate of his own choosing, or continue rejecting
candidates until a favoured candidate is put forward.
Membership
- In terms of membership the Bill as introduced in the House of Lords
- proposes 15 Commissioners as follows:
- Six lay members, including the Chairman, who do not hold judicial
office and are not practising lawyers.
- Five judges:
- Three judges of the Court of Appeal or High Court (including
at least one lord justice of appeal and at least one High Court
judge)
- One circuit judge
- One district judge or equivalent
- Two members of the legal profession:
- One barrister
- One solicitor
- One magistrate
- One tribunal member
The Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman
- The Bill creates an Ombudsman as part of a rigorous system for handling
complaints from candidates who are unhappy with the handling of their
application for judicial appointment. The Judicial Appointments and Conduct
Ombudsman will deal with complaints from candidates for judicial office
about the way in which their application was handled and judicial appointments
matters referred to him by the Secretary of State. He will also handle
complaints about the way in which complaints about judicial conduct have
been handled.
- If the Bill receives Royal Assent in 2005 we would expect the Commission
to be established during the following year.
The Commission for Judicial Appointments
- The existing Commission for Judicial Appointments was established in
March 2001 to audit the judicial appointments and Queen's Counsel procedures
and to investigate complaints about the way those procedures have been
applied in individual cases. Sir Colin Campbell was appointed First Commissioner
on establishment of the Commission, and a further seven Commissioners
were appointed in December 2001. The Commissioners have so far published
three annual reports, the most recent of which was published on 6 October
2004. At the time of publication the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor
is considering the findings. The annual reports are available in electronic
form on the Commission's website (www.cja.gov.uk), or in hard copy from
the Commission office.
- In the year ending 31 March 2004, the Commission referred 21 complaints
to the Department for response. This brought the total number of complaints
referred to the Department by the Commission between March 2001 and 31
March 2004 to 39, which represents 0.4% of applications made during this
period (as at 31 August 2004, the Commission presented 36 completed complaint
investigation reports to the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor; of
these, 21 were upheld in whole or in part, and 15 were not upheld). The
Commissioners also reported to the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor
on their audits of the 2003 Queen's Counsel competition and the competition
to select part-time chairmen of the VAT and Duties tribunal and deputy
special commissioners of income tax.
- Recommendations made by the Commissioners in complaint and audit reports
have been fed into the Department's continuing programme of improvements
to the appointments procedures. These have included several improvements
to application forms and to the guidance to applicants and sift and interview
panels.
- The Commission for Judicial Appointments conducted an audit of the 2003
High Court round. Their report was published on 1 July 2004. The Department
supported the Commission in the preparation of their report by providing
statistical information and information relating to administrative process
and a factual accuracy check on the draft chapters relating to process
and administration. The Commission also looked at a number of randomly
selected personal files.
- The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor was interested to read the
Commission's report and noted that the Commissioners have made a number
of criticisms and also a number of helpful suggestions on the way forward.
He welcomed their conclusion that appointments to the High Court continue
to be of the highest quality and integrity. The Department and the judiciary
are working to identify areas where changes can be made to the existing
process in time for upcoming appointments. The Secretary of State and
Lord Chancellor is confident that in due course, the new Judicial Appointments
Commission will be well placed to address the criticisms made in the Report.
The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor has yet to decide whether there
will be a need to run a further exercise before the Commission is established.
However, we have already commissioned consultants to develop a set of
generic competences as recommended by the Commissioners and will be working
with the senior judiciary to work up proposals for a new competition,
some skeleton proposals have already been submitted.
Developments to Judicial Appointments Processes
Assessment Centres for deputy district judges
- All deputy district judge competitions during 2003-2004 were conducted
by assessment centre following the successful pilot of the 2002 deputy
district judge (civil and magistrates' courts) and deputy Queen's Bench
master competitions. The evaluations of these centres and feedback on
the successful candidates suggest that the quality of successful candidates
remains high. Competitions for recorders in the Western Circuit and for
Employment Tribunal chairmen employing assessment centres will be piloted
this year.
Appointment improvements
- In October 2003, the judiciary established a working group to look at
ways in which the appointments processes could be changed to address a
number of concerns which had been raised by the judiciary about the quality
and consistency of selection decisions and the weighing of the various
types of evidence available to the panels.
- The group worked closely with officials from the Department, and in
July 2004, the Department proposed a range of reforms to the process.
The reforms are a further significant step in opening up the appointments
processes in the lead up to the Judicial Appointments Commission.
- The main proposals are now being taken forward for the next circuit
judge and recorder competitions due in the 2004-2005 financial year. The
reforms form a sound basis for handing the selection processes over to
the JAC and are set out below.
- Generic Competences. A new competence framework, adjusted for each
level of competition, should form the basis of all future selection.
A copy of the generic competences is at Annex B. This framework will
replace the existing criteria for all judicial appointments. The competences
will be amended for each competition to reflect the specific demands
of the post in question. A professional validation exercise incorporating
judicial and wider stakeholder input is currently underway. This will
help to refine the competences for the circuit bench - for recorders
(for use at assessment centres), for circuit judges, and for Employment
Tribunal chairman for use from the next round of competitions. The
move to a competence-based appointments process also allows fee-paid
lawyers in any jurisdiction to demonstrate that they have the right
level of skills and experience for a full-time appointment. The Government
has therefore decided that it will no longer be expected that applicants
for a full-time post will already have sat in that jurisdiction on
a fee-paid basis.
- Judicial Evidence of Candidate's Capability. There is widespread
agreement on the need to ascertain evidence of a candidate's past
performance and on the importance of judicial input into this where
good quality evidence is available. New arrangements are to be implemented
for circuit bench and recorder appointments. The senior of the Presiding
Judges (and /or appropriate specialist if relevant) of a circuit where
a candidate carries out most of his or her work, will be asked to
provide details of up to four judges who would be likely to know of
the candidate's work. The Department would then obtain written evidence
against each competence from each of these judges including, where
available, evidence drawn from appeals and appraisal. In addition
candidates will continue to be able to nominate up to six other people
who can provide evidence of their competence for the posts in question.
- Pilot for Appraisal for Recorders. Appraisals would form a useful
way of obtaining information on the performance of part-time (fee-paid)
judges who seek full-time posts. It is however, difficult to carry
out appraisal in practice given that judges operate alone. There are
plans for a pilot of appraisals for recorders in the Northern Circuit.
The pilot is to be done by a mixture of listening to tapes and observing
the judge in court. Records to be kept by civil and criminal divisions
of the Court of Appeal would supplement this.
- Assessment Centre approach. Assessment Centres are now to be extended
to cover all part-time (first) court appointments, starting with the
recorder recruitment for the Western Circuit in 2004-2005 . In addition,
assessment centres will be used for fee-paid (part-time) Employment
Tribunal chairmen appointments in 2004-2005.
- Consistency and Quality of interviews. A number of steps were proposed
to help improve the quality and consistency of panel decisions:
- strengthen training and guidance for panels;
- strengthen quality of panels through recruitment of lay interviewers
(this is now complete - see paragraph 21 below);
- annually review with senior judiciary the list of judicial office
holders who can sit on selection panels;
- introduce performance assessment framework for panel members;
- and identify ways to ensure greater consistency between panels
where several panels are required to sit in parallel for any one
competition.
- Weighing of evidence. New arrangements have been put in place to
ensure proper account is taken of each element of the available evidence,
drawn from the candidates application, consultation and interview
or assessment, with a new panel assessment form which makes the reasons
for the weighing given to self-assessment, judicial consultation and
interview (or assessment centre) clear and transparent in each case.
In those rare cases where, despite the changes being made, there is
doubt that good quality written evidence has not been properly weighed,
there will be a re-consideration of all available evidence prior to
a final recommendation being put to the Secretary of State and Lord
Chancellor.
Lay interviewer recruitment campaign
- Lay interviewers form one third of the selection panel for judicial
appointments, sitting alongside a DCA chair and a judge or judicial office
holder. In July 2003 the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor agreed
to the recruitment of a new pool of lay interviewers to refresh the existing
pool and because their contracts were coming to an end on 31 August 2004.
- The posts were advertised on the Public Appointments website, in People
Management and in the minority ethnic press. The main criteria for applicants
were the ability to demonstrate recruitment experience (including diversity
and equal opportunities) and an interest in judicial appointments with
the view to improve the process. 359 applications were received and 114
applicants were interviewed. A total of 41 applicants were appointed,
with a further 11 being appointed to a reserve list.
- The process proved to be very competitive from the onset, generating
a huge response with exceptional results. Those candidates eventually
selected for appointment had backgrounds from a wide range of organisations
and extensive experience in recruitment and selection procedure. The knowledge
they bring to the judicial appointments process should assist in developing
and refining it with a view to further promoting equality and diversity.
- The outgoing lay interviewers were the first to take on this role within
the judicial appointments field. They helped to bring about substantial
change within the appointments process and their contribution to openness
and transparency in judicial appointments was invaluable.
- The table below reflects the increased diversity of those appointed
as lay interviewers.
| |
Existing Pool |
New Pool |
| Members of minority ethnic origin |
5% |
14.6% |
| Members with a disability |
No Figures |
4.8% |
| Female members |
62% |
78% |
Developments to the process for selecting Queen's Counsel
- The 2003 Silk round was reported on in the 2002 -2003 Annual Report.
In July 2003, DCA published a consultation paper on the future of Queen's
Counsel. 376 responses were received. A summary of these responses was
published on 26 January 2004.
- Whilst the consultation did not produce a consensus as to whether the
title of Queen's Counsel should continue to exist, it was clear that the
Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor should no longer play a part in
assessing and selecting candidates to be appointed as QCs. None of the
consultees could demonstrate that such involvement in the selection process
is fundamental to the Silk mark's value; or that it adds value for consumers
of legal services. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor will, therefore,
not continue that role.
- Yet respondents from within the legal services market were equally clear
about the value of maintaining a kitemark for advocacy services - both
to recognise excellence and to provide useful information for consumers.
For this reason, the Government has invited the Bar Council and the Law
Society, and their counterparts in Northern Ireland, to develop and implement
new schemes for accrediting leading advocates, which will replace the
existing arrangements. In the Government's view, the professions are far
better placed to fulfil this function than a Minister does. The Secretary
of State and Lord Chancellor will, however, retain responsibility for
ensuring that the resultant scheme is fair and in the interests of the
public and the consumers of legal services.
- DCA officials are working with the professions to ensure that the replacement
schemes meet as many as possible of the objections that were raised over
the Silk appointments process, both during the consultation and before
it (most notably by the Office of Fair Trading and the Commissioners for
Judicial Appointments). Kitemarking must be designed to serve the interests
of consumers by identifying genuine excellence. It must provide fairness
for members of the professions. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor
also wants it to encourage diversity within the professions, with a continually
widening range of backgrounds and experience represented amongst those
the professions recognise as leaders in advocacy. To achieve these goals,
the professions are working towards rigorous selection against clearly
defined objective criteria. There will also be provision for the kitemark
to be removed where the holder has failed to meet the high standards required.
It is hoped that the new arrangements will produce the first recommendations
by spring 2005.
- The professions will be responsible for selection and will send a list
of suitable candidates to this Department. The Secretary of State and
Lord Chancellor will be responsible for recommending to Her Majesty that
she appoint those on the list to the rank of Queen's Counsel. In doing
so he will satisfy himself that the interim scheme meets the goals the
Government has set for it, and consider whether the professions' recommendations
are consistent with its terms and whether he should depart from them in
exceptional circumstances.
- The consultation process also demonstrated the need for a wider review
not just of kitemarking, but of the information available to consumers
in relation to the whole spectrum of legal services. That review will
seek to establish what shortfalls there are in the information available,
and what solutions can be implemented to serve better the interests of
the consumer. An important part of this process will be establishing what
types of accreditation scheme might be beneficial, and how they should
be set up and administered. The evaluation will not be restricted to advocacy
alone, but will cover all fields of legal practice in which there is a
need for better consumer information. It will be based on the principles
that are already being established for the advocacy scheme - fairness,
diversity, and a stronger focus on consumer interests. In particular,
it will take full account of the wider context of competition law and
the free market. While this longer-term market study is carried out, there
will be a need to keep the work consistent with the review of the regulation
of legal services that Sir David Clementi is conducting. If the conclusion
of the market study is that new ways are required to meet consumers' information
needs, one of the essential questions will be who will best be able to
meet these needs. That will have to be decided in the light of the presentation
of Sir David's conclusions, which are due at the end of 2004. Because
of this linkage, and because legislation may be needed to implement the
results of both exercises, the Government expects that the results of
the market study would be implemented at the same time as the conclusions
on the wider review.
- The reformed kitemark for higher court advocacy described above is an
interim measure. It has been adopted to provide continuity and to maintain
the advantages that the consultation process has identified, in the international
market for example. It will be reviewed when the results of the long-term
market study are available, to confirm first whether legal services customers
need it, and - if they do - that it is still compatible with the principles
that will be established in the study.
- As outlined above, the interim scheme will retain the title of QC. The
use of the QC title will be reviewed along with the other details of the
scheme once the market study is complete. But it is important to note
that although the title will not be changed in the interim scheme, the
substance of the award will be different, since it will be based on improved
criteria and selection processes.
Improving diversity in the judiciary
- The Department remains committed to increasing diversity in the judiciary.
Overall, figures for appointment of women have stayed stable at 32%, up
marginally from last year's 31%. Figures for minority ethnic recruitment
have increased significantly, with 14.8% of all appointments in 2003-2004.
The trend for appointments is represented in the table and chart below.
Female and Minority Ethnic candidate appointments, as a proportion
of total appointments by financial year.
| Year: |
1999/2000 |
2000/2001 |
2001/2002 |
2002/2003 |
2003/2004 |
| Female |
27% |
28% |
34% |
31% |
32% |
| Minority Ethnic |
4.20% |
6.90% |
7.80% |
8.90% |
14.80% |
- The figure for minority ethnic appointments may be higher than the likely
long-term trend because (a) of a larger than usual proportion of tribunal
appointments of medically qualified members in 2003-2004, and (b) a new,
more accurate method of monitoring ethnic origin (see paragraph 37 below).
However, even accounting for these factors, the underlying trend is still
up.
- The chart below sets out the figures for total percentages in-post over
the past five years of minority ethnic groups and of women. This is more
stable over time and shows a steady rise over the past five years in women
and minority ethnic groups in judicial posts.
Percentage of women and minority ethnic judges in post over the last five years.
| Year: |
1999/2000 |
2000/2001 |
2001/2002 |
2002/2003 |
2003/2004 |
| Female |
21.59% |
19.80% |
23.16% |
25.65% |
26.03% |
| Minority Ethnic |
2.06% |
3.14% |
5.01% |
5.39% |
7.21% |
- 1999 - 2000 figures for ethnicity were not collected for tribunal
officers in post & for judicial officers in courts they were
collected in 4+1 format
- 2000 - 2001 & 2001 - 2002 figures for ethnicity were broken
down to 'White' & 'Other origin' for tribunal officers &
4+1 for judicial officers in courts
- 2002 - 2003 figures collected in 4+1 for both judicial officers
in courts & tribunal officers
- 2003 - 2004 figures collected in 16+1 for both judicial officers
in courts & tribunals officers
Ethnicity Survey
- To improve the data of the judiciary and to assist with equal opportunities
monitoring, an ethnicity survey was conducted of all serving members of
the judiciary who were in post at 31 March 2003. The survey will assist
in making better and easier comparisons between judicial and tribunals'
posts and provide more robust figures on the make up of the judiciary
in the future. Government departments, public bodies and private organisations
are increasingly adopting the new '16+1' format [end
note 1]. The old '4+1' categories did not accurately reflect
the range of minority ethnic backgrounds. Members of the judiciary who
did not fall into the '4+1' categories were placed into the unknown category.
The new format enables us to have fewer 'unknowns'.
- This survey has produced significant improvements in the way we collect
data on ethnicity. All the information presented on the DCA website and
in this report for 2003- 2004 has been collated using the '16+1' format.
These new expanded categories will not limit an individual's choice and
this will assist in collating full and accurate statistics. The improved
statistics show a reduction in the number of appointments in the 'unknown'
category from 35.8% to 9%
Work shadowing scheme
- In 2003-2004, continued efforts have been made to increase awareness
about the appointment process. The work-shadowing scheme enables lawyers
who are interested in judicial appointment to shadow a circuit judge or
district judge (civil). The scheme was re-launched in March 2004 with
revised publicity appearing in all Crown and County Courts and in minority
lawyers' publications and is now open to all solicitors and barristers,
irrespective of how many years they have been qualified. The following
chart shows the number of work shadowing applicants during 2003-2004 compared
with previous years:
| |
Male % |
Female % |
Barrister % |
Solicitor % |
Ethnic % |
Total Number |
| To 7 April 2000 |
62 |
38 |
57 |
43 |
9 |
53 |
| To 5 April 2001 |
66 |
34 |
36 |
64 |
7 |
85 |
| To 5 April 2002 |
55 |
45 |
44 |
56 |
6 |
78 |
| To 5 April 2003 |
42 |
58 |
21 |
79 |
18 |
77 |
| To 31 March 2004 |
59 |
41 |
30 |
70 |
15 |
99 |
- There has been a notable increase in the number of applications in 2003-2004
(nearly 30). There was a significant increase in the number of applicants
choosing to shadow a circuit judge (40 compared to 23 last year). This
shift is likely to be due to the resumption of the regular circuit bench
and recorder competitions, following their suspension in 2002-2003.
- Solicitors still constitute the majority of those participating in the
scheme (61), although the percentage of solicitor applicants was slightly
down on 2002-2003 (70% compared to 79% in 2002- 2003). Again, this may
be due to the resumption of the circuit bench and recorder competitions,
which have traditionally attracted a greater proportion of barristers.
- The proportion of women taking part in the scheme in 2003-2004 was down
to just over 41%, compared to last years 58%. The percentage of minority
ethnic lawyers was 15%, only slightly lower than last year's 18%, though
the total percentage of minority ethnic applicants has increased to from
10% to 11.5%. It is not known why the proportion of women and minority
ethnic practitioners participating in the scheme fell in 2003-2004. Early
evidence following the re-launch of the scheme suggests that the targeted
publicity will have had a positive effect on the numbers of female and
minority ethnic lawyers applying for the scheme. Requests for application
forms and further information can be obtained from:
Work Shadowing Applications
Judicial and Appointments Policy Unit
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
3rd Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Telephone: 020 7210 1681
Disability
- The Department engaged the services of a consultant to advise on disability
issues within judicial appointments. The aim was to consider how the judicial
appointment process could be made even more accessible to those with a
disability and improve the current processes. Work taking these recommendations
forward will now be incorporated into the wider work taking place on diversity
(detailed below).
Events
- Many events are organised and attended each year, where officials from
the Department openly explain the appointments process and encourage people,
especially those from under represented groups, to apply. In 2003-2004,
a number of information evenings were jointly run with the Law Society
and the Bar Council where members of the judiciary who spoke about their
experience of the system and a DCA representative talked in detail about
the appointments process. Similar sessions were organised specifically
for the Crown Prosecution Service following the policy change which opened
up judicial appointments to CPS lawyers.
- The Department has also contributed to events organised by others, for
example, the DCA is represented on the planning committee for the Minority
Lawyers Conference and in 2003 a 'role-play' session on judicial appointments
was included as part of the Conference programme. In addition, the DCA
has had stands at a number of major conferences throughout the year, including
the Solicitors Annual Conference, the Bar Conference and the National
Graduate Law Fair. Events run or attended in 2003-2004 were:
| Event |
Date |
| Information Roadshow, Law Society, London |
2 April 2003 |
| Justices Clerks Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon |
8 May 2003 |
| World Women Lawyers Conference, London |
30 June 2003 |
| Solicitors Annual Conference, London |
25/26 September 2003 |
| Bar Conference, London |
11 October 2003 |
| Minority Lawyers Conference |
18 October 2003 |
| National Graduate Law Fair |
30 October 2003 |
| Information Roadshow, Bristol |
5 November 2003 |
| London School of Economics Careers Fair |
27 November 2003 |
| Information Roadshow, Leeds |
3 December 2003 |
| Information Roadshow, Crown Prosecution Service, York |
12 January 2004 |
| Information Roadshow, Crown Prosecution Service, London |
15 January 2004 |
| Information Roadshow, Crown Prosecution Service, Coventry |
22 January 2004 |
| Employed Bar Conference |
1 February 2004 |
| Information Roadshow, Reading |
17 February 2004 |
| Information Roadshow, Liverpool |
26 February 2004 |
| Information Roadshow, Crown Prosecution Service, London |
9 March 2004 |
| 'Challenge event', Middlesex Law Society |
10 March 2004 |
- Any individuals or groups who would be interested in holding events
or meetings in their area are invited to contact Legal and Judicial Services
Group on 020 7210 1819.
Impact of appointments improvements on diversity
- Many of the improvements to the appointments system mentioned elsewhere
in this report have served to increase the openness, professionalism and
transparency of the appointment process. For example, following last year's
pilot, assessment centres have now been introduced for all deputy district
judge competitions. The assessment centre approach is a more likely indicator
of future success than an interview alone, as it is more objective, fair
and consistent. Also, a programme of re-training for existing sift and
interview panel members and recruitment of new lay members has been undertaken
to ensure that all panel members have sufficient guidance and knowledge
of their respective roles and that their sifting and interviewing skills
are of a high standard.
Future plans
- The creation of a new Judicial Appointments Commission will be an important
step towards achieving greater diversity; it will affirm the principle
that appointments are made on merit alone and more generally will promote
a system which is accountable and transparent. However, the Department
believes that there is further important work that can and should be done
now to ensure that people with a range of backgrounds and experience are
available for consideration, whilst maintaining the overriding principle
of selection on merit. This involves taking a radical look at the changes,
which may be needed to widen the pool from which applicants for judicial
appointment are drawn. The aim is to improve diversity of the bench by
building on those existing initiatives which have already proved to be
helpful.
- A project is being taken forward in co-operation with a wide range of
interested parties and with the full support of the judiciary, the Bar
Council and the Law Society which will examine the barriers in the current
system that deter people from pursuing judicial office and ways in which
those barriers might be eliminated or reduced. A series of focus groups
took place in June 2004, attended by various stakeholders, where the key
issues surrounding the appointment of lawyers from minority groups to
the Bench were explored. The key themes discussed were:
- DCA policies/judicial working practices which are barriers to potential
candidates;
- alternative methods of demonstrating suitability for appointment
on merit;
- changes to the appointments processes to enable academics, specialist
practitioners, employed barristers or Government legal professionals to apply for
judicial office;
- proposals for oversight of diversity matters in the future; and
- improved communication and outreach strategies.
- The ideas which emerged from the focus groups were brought together
in a discussion paper which was considered at a half day conference on
30 June, attended by around 50 stakeholders. This series of events informed
the development of a consultation paper on how to increase diversity in
the judiciary, which was published in October 2004. The Department plans
to announce its program for action in spring 2005 and these details should
be published in next year's report.
- This report has outlined some of the initiatives aimed at improving
the appointments processes. Such initiatives and modernised processes
should help to give candidates confidence that judicial appointments processes
continue to become more open and transparent. Given the promising trends
in the appointment of minority ethnic and women candidates to judicial
office over the past five years, the government looks forward to attracting
an increasingly diverse range of high quality candidates to judicial office.
Annex A - Details of Appointments made 2003 - 2004
During 2003-2004 appointments were made for the following judicial offices.
The details for these appointments can be found on the list
of judicial competitions statistical tables (unavailable tables are
indicated by *). The number of appointments made is detailed in the brackets
next to the post.
Senior Appointments
Deputy Chief Justice of England and Wales (1)*
Senior Presiding Judge (1)*
Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (3)*
Lords Justices of Appeal (6)*
High Court Judges (10)
Presiding Judges (1)*
Family division liaison and chancery supervising judges (2)*
Judge of the European Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)*
Judge of the European Court of Human Rights*
Part-time judiciary in the High Court*
*Tables unavailable
Circuit Bench
Senior Circuit Judge at the Central Criminal Court (1)
Senior Circuit Judge as a Chief Social Security and Child Support Commissioner
(1)
Senior Circuit Judge at Liverpool Combined Court (Civil) (1)
Senior Circuit Judge at Liverpool Combined Court (Crime) (1)
Senior Circuit Judge at Birmingham Crown Court (1)
Specialist Chancery Circuit Judge at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre (1)
Specialist Circuit Judge in the Mercantile Court (North Eastern Circuit)
(1)*
Specialist Circuit Judge Technology and Construction Court (1)
Circuit Judge Midland Circuit (5)
Circuit Judge Western Circuit (5)
Circuit Judge South Eastern Circuit - Recommended for Appointment (25)
2002 - 2003 Circuit Judge Reserve List (23)*
*Tables unavailable
Recorders
Civil-Only (20)
2002-2003 Recorders Reserve List (64)*
2004-2005 General Recorder Competition Rolling Programme - Recommended
for Appointment (46) (Table appears in part two at paragraph A40).
District Bench
District Judge (Civil) (1)
Deputy District Judge (Civil) Recommended for Appointment -( 56)
Senior District Judge of the Principal Registry of the Family Division (1)
District Judge of the Principal Registry of the Family Division (1)
Deputy District Judge of the Principal Registry of the Family Division (16)
Deputy Senior District Judge (1)
District Judge (Magistrates Courts) - Recommended for Appointment (25)
Chief Bankruptcy Registrar of the High Court (1)
Costs Judge (Taxing Master) of the Supreme Court (1)
2003 - 2004 District Judge (Civil-Only) Reserve List (5)*
*Tables unavailable
Appointments were also made for the following non-judicial post
Examiner of the Court (19)
Immigration, Financial, Regulatory Tribunals
Full -Time Legally Qualified Member (Vice President) of the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal (9)
Fee-Paid Lay Member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (32)
Salaried Training Immigration Adjudicator 2003 (1)
Fee-Paid Member to the Panel of Chairmen of the Competition Appeal Tribunal
2003 (2)
Fee-Paid Legal Member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (22)
Fee-Paid Assessors to Assist Special Commissioners 2003 (2)
Fee-Paid Appointed Person (Trade Marks Acts) 1994 (1)
Resident Judge, Sovereign Base Areas (Cyprus) (1)
Deputy Special Commissioners and Fee-Paid Chairmen of the VAT and Duties
Tribunal 2003 (Dual Posts) - Recommended for Appointment (3)
Regional Immigration Adjudicator Birmingham - Recommended for Appointment
(1)
Social Security and Pensions Appeal Tribunal, Transport, Regulatory
Regional Chairman of the Appeal Tribunals (2)
Salaried District Chairman of Appeal Tribunals (9)
Salaried Medically Qualified Panel Member of Appeal Tribunals (1)
Fee-Paid Medically Qualified Panel Member (Specialist) of the Appeal Tribunals
(27)
Fee-Paid Medically Qualified Panel Member (Non-Specialist) of the Appeal
Tribunals (16)
Employment, Land and Valuation, Regulatory
Full-Time Adjudicator to HM Land Registry (1)
Salaried Chairman of the Employment Tribunals (14)
Full-Time Regional Chairman of the Employment Tribunals 2002 - 2003 (3)
Fee-Paid (Part-Time ) Legal Chairmen of the Employment Tribunals 2002 - 2003
(24)
Fee-Paid (Part-Time) Deputy Chairman of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal
2003-Wales (1)
Chairman of the Employment Tribunal Reserve List (1)*
Health and Social Services, Education, Regulatory
Salaried Regional Chairman of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (2)
Fee-Paid (Part-Time) Legal Members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal
2003 (31)
Fee-Paid (Part-Time) Medical Members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal
2002 - 2003 (32)
Fee-Paid (Part-Time) Medical Members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal
2003 - 2004 (39)
Fee-Paid (Part-Time) Medical Members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal
2003 - 2004 (24)
Fee-Paid President of Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal
(England) (1)
Fee-Paid President of Special Educational Needs Tribunal (Wales) (1)
Fee-Paid (Part-Time) Chairmen of the Special Edcuational Needs Tribunal
for Wales 2003 (3)
Medically Qualified Panel Member of the Appeal Tribbunals Reserve List (1) *
*Tables unavailable
ANNEX B
GENERIC COMPETENCES FRAMEWORK
JUDGEMENT
Investigating and Analysing
Logically analyses arguments and explores the information available (verbal
/ written).
- Accurately analyses and assimilates information and arguments
- Focuses on salient pieces of information e.g. facts, points of contention
- Identifies the real issues; is not lost in detail
- Recalls and refers back to important facts
- Ensures information is complete; follows up inaccuracies and contradictions
Resolving and Deciding
Applies judgement to reach solutions and make incisive, fair and legally
sound decisions.
- Takes an objective and impartial view
- Is confident to take a decision when the solution is unclear or may
be unpopular
- Makes informed decisions expeditiously; e.g. knowing when to reserve
judgements or adjourn
- Recognises the impact of the case and actions taken on those involved
e.g. victims, families, parties, corporations, case law/law reform
- Takes a pragmatic approach (within the legal framework)
PROFESSIONALISM
Demonstrating Technical Knowledge & Expertise
Has acquired in-depth legal or related relevant knowledge of the jurisdiction
applied for (see appropriate job specification) or the potential to acquire
it.
- Has comprehensive legal knowledge and experience, or other relevant
knowledge and experience as appropriate to the particular post
- Demonstrates up-to-date knowledge
- Has attained a high level of achievement in his/her chosen professional
arena or in field of expertise/area of law
- Broadens and extends knowledge e.g. learns new areas of law, clarifies
uncertainty
Demonstrating Integrity and Independence
Shows commitment by applying themselves to provide a highly professional
service.
- Is conscientious; invests effort to maintain high standards and quality
of output proportionate to the nature of the work
- Remains detached; manages own reactions and emotions to ensure consistent
application of the law
- Operates effectively in a situation which demands autonomy and self
sufficiency
- Actively maintains judicial independence and is not influenced by external
forces
Showing Authority
Keeps effective control of proceedings showing self assurance when influencing
others and handling difficult situations.
- Identifies and manages hostility by exerting control at appropriate
times
- Steers an appropriate line between informality and maintaining control
- Takes charge without intimidating others
- Is firm when challenged, and asserts authority when necessary
- Maintains patience to remain courteous and professional.
- Directs parties to concentrate on relevant points and take a logical
path through the facts and key issues
Developing Knowledge
Is open to developing an awareness of social issues, enhancing their legal
knowledge and understanding of the court service.
- Seeks to be up-to-date in relevant legal areas
- Learns about other cultures and diversity issues
- Recognises how business pressures on the court service can affect court
administration and judges' work without affecting judicial independence
or quality of the process
- Asks for others' help and advice when necessary
- Broadens and extends knowledge e.g. learns new areas of law, clarifies
uncertainty
- Uses past experiences to learn and improve
Managing Workload
Works effectively and efficiently, preparing and planning to make the best
use of time.
- Makes appropriate investigations into time needs and can challenge others'
estimates
- Maintains pace to work within time limits (where appropriate)
- Prepares for cases in advance e.g. reads files, checks lists
- Works quickly with significant amounts of information
- Is flexible; juggles workload and copes with the quantity and variety
of work
- Clearly documents and records information e.g. orders, file notes etc.
PEOPLE SKILLS
Communicating
Takes steps to ensure people understand the proceedings, orders and decisions.
- Clearly explains an order or decision, the reasons for it, and implications
of actions taken
- Ensures others understand their options and / or the future progress
of the case
- Summarises and confirms information to ensure own and others' understanding
- Keeps others (colleagues, staff, litigants etc.) informed, sharing knowledge
and information as appropriate
- Varies style of communication to converse clearly with a variety of
people from all backgrounds and cultures.
Building Positive Relationships
Shows sensitivity to the diversity and needs of litigants, witnesses, advocates, staff and colleagues.
- Openly treats people with respect and in a fair and equal manner
- Listens attentively and shows interest
- Gives others an opportunity to air their views, comments and concerns
- Shows an appreciation of other cultures and the needs of individuals
from diverse backgrounds
- Understands people's situations and aspects of everyday life e.g. general
household expenditure, public transport
- Is aware of people's concerns and anxieties; recognises other's perspectives
and priorities
- Works co-operatively and constructively in partnership with colleagues
and staff
End Notes:
- This refers to the format for ethnic monitoring used in the 2001 census
which has 16 categories including 'other' plus 'unknown'. Previous censuses
used 4 categories including 'other' plus 'unknown'. DCA's previous
monitoring of applicants for judicial posts, was by self classification
which used 4 categories and included 'other' plus 'unknown'. [back to
para 37]
[continue to Part Two]
© Crown Copyright
