B1. This annex describes the features to be found in the competition procedures. Slight variations occur but what follows is an outline of the usual procedure.
Advertisements
B2. For all but the most senior appointments (i.e. to the Court of Appeal and above) and appointments as Deputy High Court Judges, there are openly advertised competitions for professional judicial appointments. Prospective applicants are invited to contact Judicial Group for an application pack either through advertisements on the Department's website, in national newspapers, the minority ethnic press, legal journals or other appropriate publications, or by letters sent to all eligible candidates (e.g. to all part-time office holders when a full-time vacancy occurs in the same jurisdiction). The application packs for some competitions are also on the LCD website. Each application pack contains an application form, a job description, the eligibility requirements and the criteria for appointment. The application pack also provides, where possible, appropriate information about the number and location of vacancies.
Criteria
B3. Aside from the statutory eligibility requirements for each post (e.g. length of experience and nationality) there are also criteria for appointments, which may vary slightly from one competition to another, but in summary the criteria will usually be:
B4. Advocacy is not included in the criteria as the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he does not regard advocacy experience as an essential requirement for judicial office. Each candidate is judged against the criteria for appointment at each stage of the selection procedure.
Application
B5. Candidates are required to return completed application forms by a specific date, usually a month or so after the post is advertised. For some competitions, applications may be returned on-line. Applications received after the closing date are not normally accepted.
B6. The application form includes a self-assessment section in which candidates are required to state how they believe that they meet the criteria. This is an important element of the selection process and candidates are advised to consider this section carefully and study the criteria and the job description. They are also asked to provide the names of up to six individuals who will be approached for written assessments of their suitability. These individuals are sometimes called "nominated consultees" in the application material.
Written assessments
B7. Once applications have been received, Judicial Group seeks written assessments against the criteria for appointment from those who have been named by the candidate. In some competitions written assessments are sought automatically from other appropriate judges and members of the legal profession (sometimes called "automatic consultees") as listed in the relevant guide to applicants. All those whose views are sought are asked to assess only the candidates they know well enough to be able to form a view against the criteria for appointment. If assessments are the result of views obtained from others then this should be made clear in the assessment form.
B8. As is usual in recruitment systems, written assessments are submitted in confidence (on forms designed for the purpose of assessment against the criteria). The Lord Chancellor believes that the assessments should remain confidential to ensure the frankest expression of views (but see also paragraph B18 about feedback). However, any allegation of professional misconduct made about a candidate is disclosed to the candidate so that he or she can respond. Such allegations are excluded from consideration altogether if the person providing the assessment does not consent to the allegation being made known to the candidate.
B9. Assessments which are not related to the criteria or which demonstrate bias or prejudice are disregarded. The more particularised the assessments are, the more help they are in the selection process. Assessments should preferably reflect personal and recent experience. No single person's view about a candidate, whether negative or positive, is decisive in itself.
B10. Annex C is an example of the assessment form used for the Recorder competition. Different forms are used for different competitions, but the principle is the same for each. A brief note is required to show the context in which the person completing the assessment form knows the candidate. The assessments on the Recorder form consist of a marking on a scale of 1-5, on the extent to which a candidate has demonstrated the criteria for appointment (1 indicates that the candidate has very well demonstrated the criteria, 5 indicates that the candidate has not demonstrated the criteria). An overall marking is required as to a candidate's suitability for appointment (1 indicates that a candidate is exceptionally well fitted for appointment, 5 indicates that the candidate is unsuitable for appointment). Substantive comments are also sought, including examples if possible. For candidates who show promise but are not yet ready for appointment, overall marks should be indicative of current levels of suitability for appointment but appropriate qualifying comments may be added.
Shortlisting/Sifting
B11. For all appointments up to and including the level of Circuit Judge selected applicants will be asked to attend a formal interview. A panel consisting of a serving judge from the relevant jurisdiction, a senior official and a lay person consider each candidate's application and the written assessments, and shortlist to be invited for interview those that appear to best demonstrate the criteria for appointment. Those who are not invited to interview will be informed at this stage that their application has not been successful.
Interview
B12. The structure of the interview and questions asked depend on the nature and level of appointment, but in general each interview lasts for about 45 minutes to an hour. The interviews are conducted by the same, or similarly constituted, panels to those who compiled the shortlist. The written assessments help to inform the interview panel, but the panel members make their own assessments by asking questions which further test how well each candidate demonstrates the criteria for appointment. The interview therefore provides a further opportunity for the candidate to demonstrate the qualities and skills needed to be a judge.
B13. The chair of the panel, normally a member of Judicial Group or a senior Lord Chancellor's Department official with relevant experience, explores the candidate's professional background and reasons for applying. The judicial member of the panel then asks questions that seek to assess the extent of a candidate's legal knowledge and professional skills and experience (including experience of part-time judicial service, if applicable). These can include questions about general legal developments and legal issues which have been highlighted in the media. For some appointments there are also practical questions, such as at Recorder interviews where there may be a sentencing exercise. For a number of tribunal appointments questions are based on a pre-prepared case study and for District Judge appointments, in addition to delivering a judgment on a case study which is considered in advance, candidates sometimes have a "box-work" exercise (i.e. the non court-based paper work which is part of a District Judge's duties). There are not necessarily right or wrong answers to the majority of questions asked. The panel members are looking to see whether the candidate has sound instincts and the right approach to the sort of problems they might face when sitting. Some candidates have less actual experience of the particular jurisdiction than others and allowance is made for that.
B14. The lay interviewer asks questions that seek to assess a candidate's skills, abilities and personal qualities. He or she aims to find out how well the candidate keeps in touch with people and social issues. The lay interviewer plays a full and active part in the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates.
B15. Towards the end of the interview the chair may ask questions to further explore matters raised as a result of questions asked by the other panel members, as well as questions relating to any of the criteria for which the candidate has not been given the opportunity to demonstrate his/her qualities. The candidate is then given the opportunity to ask questions and the chair concludes by checking that nothing of significance has changed since the application form was completed which might be an obstacle to appointment. Information about interviews is given in the guide for applicants in each application pack.
B16. After the interview the candidate is rated against each of the criteria. Each panel member reaches an independent conclusion and then views are debated and an overall assessment reached which takes account of all the evidence, including the written assessments obtained before the shortlisting.
Lord Chancellor's decision
B17. The Lord Chancellor reaches his decision about whom to appoint after considering the advice he receives from the interview panel. The successful candidates are those who best demonstrate that they meet the selection criteria first in their application forms, next in the light of the information obtained in the written assessments and finally in the interview. Candidates are informed of the outcome of their application as soon as possible after the Lord Chancellor has reached his decision. Given the strong competition for relatively few vacancies (this is amply illustrated in the detailed statistics provided in Annex H) it is very often the case that "unsuccessful" candidates are considered suitable for appointment, but are not among those who are assessed to be the best.
Feedback to unsuccessful applicants
B18. The Lord Chancellor and his officials are keen to encourage unsuccessful candidates to obtain feedback. At feedback interviews, which are conducted either over the telephone or at face to face meetings, unsuccessful candidates are given the substance of all the written assessments received and, if applicable, the interview panel's assessment. They are not, however, given information which might reveal the identity of the individual providing a written assessment.
B19. The fact that a candidate is unsuccessful one year does not mean
that he or she will not be successful the next. Feedback may help a candidate
to consider how to approach future
applications. During the period covered by this report, Judicial Group officials
conducted a minimum of 500 feedback interviews of which approximately 101
were by face to face interview.
Career interviews
B20. In addition to feedback, staff in Judicial Group are also happy to discuss with individuals their career aspirations and development. Again, these interviews can be either in face to face meetings or over the telephone.
Commission for Judicial Appointments
B21. Before making a complaint to the Commission for Judicial Appointments (see chapter 2) a candidate must have received feedback from Judicial Group. If, having received feedback, the candidate remains dissatisfied with the way the application has been treated, he or she may lodge a complaint with the Commission.
B22. Commissioners who carry out any routine audit of the judicial
appointments and Silk selection systems, or who investigate complaints, may
require access to some or all applicants' files. This might include the file
of the complainant and the files of other candidates in the same
competition, both successful and unsuccessful. They may also require access
to application forms, written assessments, and interview assessments. The
Commissioners are required to treat all such information in confidence.