Over recent years there have been many developments in the way in which judges are appointed - in particular the move to openly advertised procedures for most appointments and lay involvement on selection panels.
The Lord Chancellor is constantly seeking to improve the procedures and in July 1999 he decided to ask Sir Leonard Peach, formerly the Commissioner for Public Appointments, to examine them, and the procedures for appointing Queen's Counsel, to see if any further steps could be taken.
Information about the current arrangements, including the annual report on judicial appointments and Sir Leonard Peach's report are available on the Lord Chancellor's Department's website.
During the course of his scrutiny Sir Leonard held around 40 meetings with representative bodies and interest groups from within the legal profession and with members of the judiciary. He had free access to the records and procedures and observed sifts and interviews - thus he saw the procedures in action.
Sir Leonard acknowledged that the consultation process (which some still erroneously call "secret soundings") is controversial, but said in his report that:
"... as an experienced selector, my conclusion is that to abandon the consultation process would be a neglect of valuable input as one part of the assessment."
He concluded that the procedures and their execution were as good as any he had seen in the public sector. However he made 26 recommendations for further developments to the procedures, including two major ones - setting up a Commission for Judicial Appointments and a pilot scheme for a one-day assessment centre. The Lord Chancellor broadly welcomed the recommendations and has already implemented a number of them.
A project board has been set up to oversee implementation of the proposals. Its task is to ensure the effective implementation of Sir Leonard's recommendations.
As at 1 June 2001, progress against each of Sir Leonard's recommendations is outlined below:
| Peach Recommendations | Progress to date | |
| JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS | ||
| 1 | That deputy High Court Judge posts are filled using the established appointments procedures bringing them into line with other part-time appointments. | The Lord Chancellor is considering this proposal. |
| 2 | That a formal meeting is held between the Lord Chancellor and senior judges, notably the Lord Chief Justice, the other Heads of Divisions - and others - at least every 6 months and more frequently if required. This should be dedicated to the discussion of candidates to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and Heads of Division posts. | In place |
| That succession lists should be drawn up which should be divided into those categories agreed to be immediately capable of filling the posts and lists of others who will be contenders within a specific period of time (usually two to three years). Candidates will be identified from applications and by nomination and each meeting will include consideration of lists of the best available female and ethnic minority candidates, solicitors and barristers. | Consultees in the High Court competition were asked to identify applicants and non-applicants with long term potential, particularly women, ethnic minorities and solicitors. | |
| The Lord Chancellor will recommend for appointment individuals chosen from the list of short or long term successors and if he wishes to depart from the lists will return to the meeting for further discussion of alternative candidates. | Implemented with immediate effect for short-term lists; the Lord Chancellor will discuss with the senior judges any departure from the lists. | |
| The Commissioner for Judicial Appointments will be a member of this meeting. | The First Commissioner has been appointed and will attend these meetings | |
| 3 | Applicants are required to state their own views on their suitability for the appointment which they are seeking against the criteria outlined in the guidance and which should be repeated in summary in the application form. They should produce their own assessments of their experience, knowledge, skills and characteristics. | Implemented Further refinements could follow possibly as part of the assessment centre approach. |
| 4 | All applicants should be asked to name not less than three, but no more than six, consultees (the nominated consultees) familiar with their work who will be automatically contacted and asked to provide opinions based on the stipulated requirements of the post. The views expressed should be those of the nominated consultee. Others should not be consulted by that person. | Implemented for a number of competitions. |
| 5 | The consultation form should be redesigned to ensure that the comments invited are allied to the requirements of the post and not general. So a list of the knowledge, skills and characteristics required should be shown on the form as well as in the guidance. | Implemented for a number of competitions. |
| 6 | The form be redesigned so that the overall result is an outcome of the comments and the markings in specific areas not vice versa. | Implemented for a number of competitions. |
| 7 | The form should have a section which requires the consultee to indicate the source of the information contained within the entries: specifically whether it represents solely the consultee's views, those of others (how many and whom) and whether there were disagreements, reconciled or unreconciled. | Implemented for a number of competitions. |
| 8 | The responses of the nominated consultees will be reviewed separately and receive appropriate weighting in relation to the overall consultation process. | Introduced on a rolling basis across all competitions with effect from September 2000. |
| 9 | The Department should arrange to review the job description for posts at regular intervals, probably yearly. It should also address in detail the skills and characteristics required, probably less frequently. | A review of the common criteria has been
completed and implemented for all competitions. Job descriptions and criteria will be revised in the light of continuing developments in the role of the judiciary. |
| 10 | That a pilot scheme for a one day Assessment Centre be produced. | The Department has been engaged in the early stages of developing a pilot assessment centre approach. The tendering process for consultants to assist has begun. (see press release) |
| 11 | That psychometric and competences tests currently available on the market should be tested for relevance and, if necessary, others be commissioned to aid in the evaluation and measurement of judicial skills and qualities. | To be taken forward with the pilot assessment centre |
| 12 | The Department should build a collection of practical exercises for use in interviews and assessment centres. | Pending the pilot assessment centre these
will continue to be used in interviews. They will developed further in the context of the pilot assessment centre |
| 13 | That the Lord Chancellor creates a Commission for Judicial Appointments along the lines outlined in the report. | The First Commissioner was appointed in
March 2001. (see press
release) The appointment of deputy commissioners to follow. |
| 14 | That the resources are found to enable the extension of the Wales and Chester pilot appraisal scheme to all other deputy District Judges with a view to a further progressive extension to all part-time judicial post-holders. | The scheme for deputy District Judges was replicated on the North Eastern Circuit during 2000; extension to the rest of England and Wales will take place during 2001-02 and 2002-03. |
| 15 | That a system of annual self-appraisal is introduced for all part-time judges. A suggested form is provided at Appendix E in the report. | Self appraisal has been incorporated into
the deputy District Judge scheme. Self-appraisal for other appointments to be developed. |
| 16 | Sir Leonard provided a detailed commentary in his report on the 42 recommendations received from the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunity. | Many of the recommendations of the Working Party are to be carried forward within the implementation of the Peach Report recommendations. Others are being taken forward separately. |
| 17 | That the Department should make public its informal guidelines which meet the recommendation that the possibility of a disabled person being unable to demonstrate that his or her period in office will not be of maximum or stipulated duration should not be a block to appointment or promotion. | Appropriate information will be added to application packs during 2001. |
| That the Department should make public its informal guidelines which meet the recommendation that appropriate arrangements should be made for the early retirement or loss of office of a disabled person so that the financial requirements of the associated benefits shall not be used as a reason why he or she is not considered for or appointed to such an office which is deserved on merit. | Appropriate information will be added to application packs during 2001. | |
| 18 | That consideration be given to extending the reserve list system by maintaining those on the list for a period of two years rather than one. | Reserve lists will be applied according to the circumstances of the particular competition |
| 19 | That consideration be given to creating a pool system for Tribunals with like requirements, to be refreshed by competitions from time to time rather than annually. | This recommendation has been fed into the general review of tribunals conducted by Sir Andrew Leggatt. |
| 20 | That consideration be given to restricting candidates applying for the post of Circuit Judge, and other relevant posts, to two or three Circuits or to having a nation-wide competition. | In the Circuit Bench competition applicants are asked to identify up to a maximum of 3 Circuits. |
| QUEEN'S COUNSEL | ||
| 1 | That the assessment for the rank of Queen's Counsel shall be conducted against the professional requirements of that title and not be confused with potential for the judiciary. | This has been clarified in the Silk guide to applicants. |
| 2 | That the Silk assessment form be restructured to improve the quality and facilitate the interpretation of the written assessments provided and to enable it to be used more effectively by all consultees. | The Silk consultation form has been redesigned. |
| 3 | That the assessors review the nominated consultees' comments as a separate group and give these appropriate weight. | This was implemented in the Silk 2001 round. |
| Nominated consultees should be limited to between three and six. | Applicants for Silk 2001 were asked to nominate up to 6 consultees. | |
| 4 | That the question relating to the applicant's suitability for Silk should be mandatory and should require a response which relates to the criteria. | A new self-assessment question was included in the Silk 201 application form. |
| 5 | That a table of fees for successful candidates in the format contained in the report or a similar format be published annually. | This was introduced when the Silk 2000 announcements were made in April 2000. |
| 6 | That the powers should be made available for the officials entrusted with recommending candidates to the Lord Chancellor to interview a candidate in exceptional circumstances where the individual is believed to be a good candidate but further information is required in order to determine finally his or her suitability. | This recommendation is under consideration |
The Lord Chancellor attaches considerable importance to the recommendations in the Peach Report as part of his ongoing development of the appointments procedures. Implementation of the report builds on the existing systems with the object of ensuring the highest possible quality of appointments.
