1.1 This fourth Annual Report covers the existing and developing procedures for judicial appointments and Queen's Counsel. It sets out the appointments for the competitions held which either did not feature in the third Annual Report or were held between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002. The report contains the following: developments on new and ongoing initiatives (chapter 2), appointments in 2001/2002 (chapter 3), Queen's Counsel (chapter 4), the lay magistracy (chapter 5), and other work of Judicial Group (chapter 6). A series of annexes contain statistics on the competitions and appointments, the full criteria for appointment and other explanatory information. This chapter outlines the Lord Chancellor's approach to judicial appointments and briefly notes relevant facts that help to put the other chapters into context.
1.2 A number of initiatives and developments are covered in this report, some of which were introduced after 1 April 2002, so strictly speaking they fall outside the period covered by this Annual Report. Nevertheless, as much work had been undertaken during 2001/2002 information is included in the appropriate chapters of the report.
1.3 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 most senior appointments are made by The Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, although in these situations too, the advice of the Lord Chancellor is sought. The Lord Chancellor is assisted in this work by 194 staff (as at 30 June 2002) in the Judicial Group of his Department. Judicial Group also administers the appointments of part-time1 and full-time professional and lay tribunal members, and of lay magistrates (except in the Duchy of Lancaster that is Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside, where, for historical reasons, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes the appointments), and appointments to Queen's Counsel.
1.4 The work of Judicial Group supports one of the Lord Chancellor's Department's strategic objectives, namely:
1.5 One of Judicial Group's Service Delivery Agreements is to:
For the first time this year the annexes containing statistics on appointments also include information about the number of vacancies against which performance of the Service Delivery Agreement can be measured.
1.6 The need for an independent judiciary is well recognised throughout the free world and it is an essential safeguard of democratic freedom and of freedom under the law. Our society relies on an impartial judiciary as part of an open justice system where justice can be seen to be done. These principles of independence and impartiality are nourished by the culture of individual judgement within our judiciary. The Lord Chancellor actively seeks to ensure that the procedures for judicial appointment are open and fair and support the appointment of suitable candidates to judicial office on merit. Judicial qualities and abilities are found in candidates from different backgrounds, and the Lord Chancellor aspires to a judiciary that is more diverse and reflective of the society it serves. To help achieve this the Lord Chancellor introduced improvements to the procedures that will encourage an increased number of applications from candidates who might otherwise be reluctant to apply.
Guiding Principle
1.7 The Lord Chancellor may only appoint (or recommend for appointment) to judicial office those who meet the statutory qualifications. Beyond that, the guiding principle which underpins the Lord Chancellor's policies in selecting candidates for judicial appointment is that appointment is strictly on merit. The Lord Chancellor appoints those who appear to him to be best qualified regardless of gender, ethnic origin, marital status, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion or disability, except where the disability prevents the fulfilment of the physical requirements of the office. Decisions on merit are based on assessments of candidates against the specific criteria for appointment. Extraneous matters such as a candidate's chambers or firm are immaterial.
1.8 In summary the criteria for appointment are:
Details of the criteria for appointment are at Annex A and full details of the procedures from application to appointment can be found at Annex B.
Ongoing Improvements
1.9 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 the career development of judicial office holders. It is worth noting the following observation by the Senior Salaries Review Board in its Report on the Fundamental Review of the Judicial Salary Structure (published on 28 February 2002):
"The evidence we have received points to significant increases of both the quality and quantity of work across the judiciary. In particular we have noted the additional responsibilities that have been conferred upon the UK judiciary by the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the introduction of modernised, flexible working practices leading to increased productivity. Judges are now required to adopt a more pro-active role in their management of cases, and not simply to adjust to the rhythms of the litigants and their lawyers."
1.10 In 1999 the Lord Chancellor authorised a thorough review of the judicial appointments procedures by Sir Leonard Peach, the former Commissioner for Public Appointments. Although Sir Leonard found many commendable aspects in the procedures, he made a number of recommendations for improvement which the Lord Chancellor has followed through. Two important recommendations feature in detail in Chapter 2 of the report the creation of the Commission for Judicial Appointments and the piloting of an assessment centre approach on three competitions for judicial posts. The Deputy District Judge Appraisal and Mentoring scheme which was first introduced between 1997 and 1998 on the Wales and Chester Circuit, with the North Eastern Circuit quickly following suit, has now been rolled out to all Circuits from January of this year. Chapter 2 covering developments provides more information about this and other initiatives.
1.11 Many initiatives introduced over the past few years have featured in previous Annual Reports. Interspersed throughout this fourth Annual Report are updates of the progress on some of these initiatives, but in many instances, the roots of sustained change may not be visible but they are gradually producing substantive differences that will become more noticeable in the future. There are many talented people to be found in all parts of the legal profession. Initiatives aim to encourage those who aspire to judicial office and who possess the qualities and abilities, and to give serving judicial office holders better opportunities to advance, seeking to ensure that no-one is thwarted by gender, race or disability.
1.12 Figures for the various stages of the standard open competition procedures in 2001/2002, (i.e. application, interview and appointment) show an increase in the number of women applying for the range of judicial posts (i.e. lay and specialist posts as well as those requiring a legal qualification), attending a subsequent interview and being appointed. The percentage of women applicants increased from 25.6 % (933) in 2000/2001 to 31.7 % (1341) in 2001/2002. The percentage of women attending interviews rose from 26.8% (488) in 2000/2001 to 31.2% (687) in 2001/2002. The percentage of women appointed to judicial posts increased from 28.4% (214) in 2000/2001 to 34.4% (315) in 2001/2002.
1.13 All candidates are asked to complete an ethnic origin questionnaire; they are not obliged to do so but the statistics produced help the Lord Chancellor to monitor progress in the appointment of minority ethnic judges. The statistics in 2001/2002 show a slight increase in the percentage of applications received from applicants who have declared themselves of minority ethnic origin 8.2% (346) of all applications received compared to 7.1% (258) in 2000/2001. At interview stage, minority ethnic candidates made up 8.3% (183) of those invited, compared with 7.3% (133) in 2000/2001. There was also an increase in the proportion of appointments to minority ethnic applicants to 7.8 % (71 appointments) from 6.9% (52) in 2000/2001.
1.14 There has been a steady increase in the percentage of women appointed since the first Judicial Appointments Annual Report was published in October 1999 as illustrated in the chart below. The chart also shows the proportion of minority ethnic appointments over the same period. The proportion dropped in 1999/2000, but there has since been a rise in the level of appointments.
PROPORTION OF WOMEN AND MINORITY ETHNIC APPOINTMENTS SINCE 1998
|
KEY
|
 |
*The figures in brackets are the actual numbers appointed
1.15 Various people and organisations have voiced the need for more women and people from minority ethnic communities to be appointed to the senior judiciary. Whilst the Lord Chancellor aspires to a more diverse judiciary, he can only appoint judges from the pool of people who are interested in judicial office and who have the relevant level of experience, and therefore efforts continue to encourage more applications from other underrepresented groups. It is important to note that the appointment figures provided above must be viewed in the context of the make up of the legal profession from which the majority of judicial appointments are made.
1.16 The tables below show the percentage of women lawyers, and lawyers known to be of minority ethnic origin at various levels of the profession2. These figures are given as an indication of the size of the likely pool of candidates and include those who for a variety of reasons may not be eligible or interested in appointment.
| Call or Admission | Women Barristers (%) | Women Solicitors (%) |
| Over 10 Years | 20.4 | 21.7 |
| Over 15 Years | 16.2 | 16.4 |
| Over 20 Years | 13.2 | 12.0 |
| Between 1019 Years | 27.7 | 33.5 |
| Between 1029 Years | 23.2 | 25.3 |
| Between 1529 Years | 19.2 | no available data |
| Between 2029 Years | 16.4 | 15.4 |
| Call or Admission | Minority Ethnic Barristers (%) | Minority Ethnic Solicitors (%) |
| Over 10 Years | 6.8 | 2.7 |
| Over 15 Years | 5.8 | 1.4 |
| Over 20 Years | 4.9 | 0.9 |
| Between 10-19 Years | 8.7 | 5.3 |
| Between 10-29 Years | 7.1 | 3.6 |
| Between 15-29 Years | 6.0 | 2.0 |
| Between 20-29 Years | 4.9 | 1.3 |
1.17 Of the total number of appointments made through open competition a proportion were lay or other "non-legal" judicial appointments (for example, lay member of the Extended Protection of Children Act Tribunal). 593 appointments were lawyer3 judicial appointments in 2001/2002. The average length of legal experience of those appointed through open competitions was 22 years. The proportion of women lawyers/women full-time judicial post holders appointed was 31.7% (188), and the proportion appointed known to be of minority ethnic origin was 6.4% (38). These figures can be compared with the ranges shown in the table above and show that the proportion of women appointees compares well to the proportion of women in the relevant range. The proportion of minority ethnic appointees is similar to the levels in the profession.
Projections of Future Appointments
1.18 Last year we published figures showing the projected number of female lawyers who may be appointed to some of the main judicial posts and to Queen's Counsel in 2005 and 2010. Calculations were made using data supplied by the Bar Council and the Law Society and from information and statistical analysis from within Judicial Group. At the time we had insufficient data to produce meaningful projections for minority ethnic appointments. We promised to review the figures from last year to take account of improved statistical information and to look at using alternative methodologies. This year, in addition to reviewing the figures for female appointments, we have been able to produce projections for appointments of minority ethnic lawyers to some judicial posts and to Queen's Counsel. As we stated last year these are the best calculations that can be made using the information available and any estimates of the position in 2005 and 2010 must be treated with great caution.
1.19 We have reviewed the figures published last year showing the projected number of women being appointed using a similar methodology to last year, but additionally taking into account the following: the number of women appointed in 2001/2002, a revised set of figures showing the current make-up of the profession supplied by the Bar Council and the Law Society, and the net retention rate amongst women moving into the likely eligible experience range (10-29 years in practice). Appointments to the full-time bench are dependent on the number of those on the part-time bench with the necessary experience and the projections reflect this by using age as an indicator of experience. It should be recognised however, that the pool will change as, on the one hand, women are appointed into part-time posts and, on the other hand, women are appointed out of the ranks of part-timers to the full-time bench. The ratio of one to the other may affect the projections in the future.
1.20 Having reviewed last year's figures we are satisfied that we are making progress against the projections for female appointments to Deputy District Judge, District Judge, Recorder and Circuit Judge. Since 1998 the proportion of women applicants awarded Queen's Counsel has been greater than the proportion of male applicants awarded Queen's Counsel, but women have constituted only between 8.8% and 11.2% of applicants in that period. Progress against projections for appointment to Queen's Counsel is therefore not as positive. Although the number of awards to female applicants rose (from 10 to 12), the percentage of female awards fell in 2001/2002 to 10.6% from around 13% in the preceding three years. The following table shows the full projections for percentages of female appointments in 2005 and 2010.
PERCENTAGES OF FEMALE APPOINTMENT
| . |
Deputy District
Judge
|
Recorder
|
District
Judge
|
Circuit
Judge
|
Queen's
Counsel
|
| Performance in 2001/2002 |
35%
|
20%
|
50%**
|
25%
|
10.6%
|
| Projections for 2005 |
38%
|
20%
|
38%
|
20%
|
17%
|
| Projections for 2010 |
42%
|
24%
|
45%
|
25%
|
20%
|
** Only 2 appointments were made from the Reserve List, one of whom was female.
1.21 This year it has been possible to produce some projections for minority ethnic appointments in three areas Deputy District Judge, Recorder and Queen's Counsel shown in the following table.
PERCENTAGES OF MINORITY ETHNIC 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%
|
Judicial Training
1.22 The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) is a non-departmental public body funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department. It was set up in 1979 to provide training for Crown Court judges. In 1985 its remit was extended to cover the provision of training in civil and family jurisdictions and the supervision of the training for lay magistrates and judicial chairmen and members of tribunals. The JSB is chaired by Lord Justice Waller and Board members include judges, a practitioner, an academic, a lay magistrate and one representative each from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. The JSB operates through five executive committees (Criminal, Civil, Family, Magisterial and Tribunals committees) and one advisory committee (Equal Treatment Advisory Committee ETAC). ETAC operates four working groups, which are concerned with, respectively: race and minority ethnic issues; gender and sexual orientation; unrepresented parties and children; and disability.
1.23 In April 2002, the JSB issued a policy statement in response to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the contents of which are derived from the ETAC strategy. That statement is reproduced below, and the JSB will keep this policy under review and will report on progress in future JSB Annual Reports.
POLICY STATEMENT
Since its creation in 1994, ETAC has used both written materials and direct training to ensure full- and part-time judges in England and Wales are equipped to ensure equality of treatment among all those coming before them in court. In particular, the objectives of ETAC are to ensure that judges:
1. Are able to perform their judicial functions in a manner that is fair and free from bias or discrimination.
2. Are able to identify their own prejudices and preconceptions and how these can affect their decision-making and interpersonal relationships.
3. Acquire the relevant knowledge about race, culture, religion, gender, disability, and sexual orientation.
4. Are able to address and, where necessary, challenge discriminatory language or behaviour.
In furtherance of these objectives, in January 2001 ETAC settled a three-year strategy for the delivery of equal treatment training. Under this strategy ETAC will ensure:
1. That all judges are provided, on initial appointment, a copy of the JSB Equal Treatment Bench Book.
2. That all JSB seminar design teams will include a diversity consultant, and that a diversity consultant will attend all JSB courses and seminars.
3. That all JSB seminar and session aims and objectives will include equality of treatment.
4. That all JSB core training courses and seminars will incorporate equal treatment modules, materials or case studies.
5. That measures for evaluating the effectiveness of equal treatment training will be developed.
1.24 During the year ETAC also published a leaflet entitled "Equality and the Courts" as a companion to the leaflet "Race and the Courts". Like that leaflet its prime audience was the lay magistracy and chairs and members of tribunals. The leaflet condensed the material published most recently for inclusion in the JSB's Equal Treatment Bench Book and included short sections on disability, children and unrepresented parties, gender and sexual orientation.
1.25 The JSB runs induction courses which all newly appointed Recorders, Deputy District Judges (Civil) and Deputy District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) (formerly Acting Stipendiary Magistrates) are required to attend before being authorised by the Lord Chancellor to sit judicially. (Newly appointed office holders are also required to undertake a period of sitting-in with an experienced judge and a period of supervised sitting and, if they are to hear criminal cases, they must also visit local prisons and the National Probation Service for England and Wales).
1.26 The JSB also runs continuation seminars which judges normally attend on a three-year cycle, and specialised seminars covering, as necessary, new legislation. During the past year the JSB has developed and refined competence frameworks for use in the training of lay magistrates and judicial officers in tribunals, and has assumed significant new responsibilities for the training of judges in information technology. The Lord Chief Justice has also nominated Mr Justice Maurice Kay as Co-ordinator for JSB training with the Royal Courts of Justice and he has put in place a developing series of afternoon seminars for the senior judiciary.
1.27 The JSB Annual Report 2001/2002 was published in July 2002. For further information contact:
Judicial Studies Board
9th Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P 4QU
Tel: 020 7217 4708
Fax: 020 7217 4779
email
website: www.jsboard.co.uk
1 Following the introduction of salaried part-time working and, to clarify terminology, those appointments where a fee is paid, formerly referred to as part-time, are now known as fee-paid, to avoid any confusion with salaried part-time appointments.
2 Figures provided by the Bar Council (May 2002) and the Law Society (July 2002).
3 i.e. Barrister or Solicitor or existing full-time Judicial post-holder.
