ANNEX
A (see Q 64)
Letter to Mr David Winnick MP from the
Lord Chancellor
When I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select
Committee on 10 November, I promised I would write in answer to
your question about the number of female and ethnic minority High
Court Judges.
At the time I gave evidence last year the number
of female High Court Judges was seven. That is still the case.
You mentioned in your question that the number of ethnic minority
High Court Judges last year was one. Although the data on the
ethnic origin of judges may not be complete, it is known that
there are no High Court Judges of black or Asian origin and there
were none when I gave evidence last year. I provided this information
to the Committee with my supplementary evidence. For your information
now, I attach up to date information about the number of women
and ethnic minorities in a range of judicial appointments, including
the High Court.
I am committed to improving these figures. I
continue to develop equal opportunity policies in judicial appointments
which should result in greater numbers of female and ethnic minority
practitioners applying successfully for appointment.
I made a Keynote Address to the Ethnic Minority
Lawyers' Conference on 29 November 1997. On that occasion I said:
"Appointments must be made on merit—irrespective
of ethnic origin; sex; marital status; political affiliation;
sexual orientation; religion; or disability. These are not just
words. They are firm principles. I would not tolerate any discrimination.
Discrimination has no place in the judicial appointments process.
I am determined to modernise the judicial appointments
process further—to make it more open and more transparently
fair.
I have a role in encouraging the Law Society
and Bar Council in their efforts to promote equality of opportunity
for all. I want to put on record my support for their codes on
equal opportunities—both introduced in 1995. These are important
charters which are vital to the continuing modernisation of the
legal professions.
There is no place for bigotry in the judicial
appointments process. I want to reassure you that, if a consultee
were to display any discriminatory tendencies when discussing
an individual, that would not get past me, and I would not tolerate
that.
There is no room for complacency. I want to
see more people from ethnic minorities coming forward for appointment.
I am anxious that people do not exclude themselves
because they think, for any reason, that they are not from the
kind of background which produces judges.
Let me say it clearly—I am determined
to see more applications for judicial appointment and Silk come
from ethnic minority lawyers. I have instructed my officials to
do everything they can to provide help and information to people
who are considering whether a judicial career might be for them.
I will do all I can to ensure that ethnic minority
lawyers have the same opportunities for appointment as their white
peers."
On 12 March 1998 I followed these words with
action, by writing to every Head of Chambers in England and Wales
urging them to encourage more ethnic minority practitioners to
apply for Silk. I enclose a copy of that letter.[5]
At the Women Lawyers' Conference on 25 April
1998, I called for greater equality of opportunity in the judicial
appointments system. I said there:
"The system needs to be flexible enough
to cope with the needs of those able lawyers who may have had
an untypical career, perhaps because they have had a career break
to bring up young children.
I believe that our judicial appointments system
is basically sound. But any system can be improved. I intend to
improve it. I want to oversee a judicial appointments system which
is open, fair, effective, and—just as importantly—accessible.
Everyone who is eligible for appointment and who wants appointment
should have a fair chance to win appointment.
All eligible applicants must have equality of
opportunity whether they are men or women, young or not so young,
black or white, heterosexual or homosexual. Everyone who wants
a judicial appointment should have an equal chance to demonstrate
that they have what it takes to be a judge.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating.
Prejudice or discrimination has no place in this system. If I
were to encounter it, it would not be tolerated.
I have also instructed that a senior official—Judith
Lennard— should devote the majority of her time—not
just a small part, as at present—to equal opportunity issues
in judicial appointments. Her duties will include developing the
many initiatives I have already announced, for example, block
sittings; work shadowing; and appraisal of part-timers. This demonstrates
that promoting equality of opportunity has become a core activity
in the judicial appointments process.
I urge both the Law Society and the Bar Council
to improve their monitoring of the impact of their codes on attitudes
towards women and ethnic minority lawyers; and to gather more
information about the career progress women lawyers make in comparison
with their male peers. This will expose the problems women may
face for all to see. It will make clear the priorities for action
by the profession.
I have been surprised that so few women apply
for Silk—and even more surprised that so few women have
been successful in the past in achieving it. This year, I remain
surprised on one front. Only 9 per cent of applicants to this
year's Silk competition were women. Yet women make up 14 per cent
of barristers of over 15 years call. Why aren't more of you applying?
I ask this question against a background of
good news for women lawyers. Of the 46 women who applied for Silk
this year, 10—that is 22 per cent—were successful.
This is the highest proportion and the highest number of women
Silk ever.
I will do everything in my power to ensure the
judicial appointments and Silk process is fair and open."
In the last Silk round I appointed on merit
10 women and four from ethnic minorities—in both cases the
highest numbers ever on one single occasion. I spoke at the annual
Silks Ceremony on 1 May 1998. On that occasion, whilst addressing
the considerations for determining the award of Silk, I said:
"There is no mention of universities or
chambers, sex or ethnic origin. Each one of you is here on your
individual merits alone.
The consultation process by which I learned
about you and your practice was very extensive indeed. Four officials
have worked full-time for nearly six months, consulting well over
400 judges and professional associations representing the whole
range of both the Bar and the solicitors' profession.
I set out and published the criteria I wanted
consultees to consider, and which I would use to decide who would
be Silk. I received a special brief containing all the comments
and assessments of every female and ethnic minority applicant,
and every solicitor applicant. I wanted to reassure myself that
all of the special circumstances faced by members of these groups
were taken fully into account by me.
I am delighted that this has worked—many
women and members of the ethnic minorities have this year been
able to win through and demonstrate that they are worthy of Silk.
The improvement over the last few years has been slow, but now
seems to be well in place."
The number of female and ethnic minority judges
is a reflection of the numbers in the profession with the appropriate
levels of seniority. It is heartening that we are seeing a gradual
increase in their numbers in the judiciary. Since May 1997 the
percentage of women in the main tiers of the judiciary has risen
from 9.8 per cent to 10.6 per cent and the percentage of ethnic
minority judges over the same period has increased from 1.5 per
cent to 1.6 per cent. I do not deny that the increases are small,
particularly in relation to the appointment of people from minority
ethnic communities. However, if all of my exhortations bear fruit,
and the culture of reticence is broken down, I should have a better
story to tell in the future.
21 November 1998
HOLDERS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE OF ETHNIC MINORITY
ORIGIN
AS AT 1 NOVEMBER 1998
| Post | Of Ethnic Minority Origin
| Total | % |
| | |
|
| High Court Judges | 0 | 98
| — |
| Circuit Judges (including Judges of the Technology & Construction Court)
| 5 | 557 | 0.9%
|
| Recorders | 14 | 876
| 1.6% |
| Assistant Recorders | 12 |
377 | 3.2% |
| Assistant Recorders in Training | 2
| 133 | 1.5% |
| District Judges | 5 | 365
| 1.4% |
| Family Division District Judges | 0
| 19 | — |
| Deputy District Judges | 12
| 745 | 1.6% |
| Stipendiary Magistrates | 2
| 92 | 2.2% |
| Acting Stipendiary Magistrates | 4
| 113 | 3.5% |
Note
The data base may be incomplete as the ethnic origin of candidates for Judicial office has been collected only since October 1991.
| | | |
WOMEN IN THE JUDICIARY AS AT 1 NOVEMBER 1998
BY BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
| | Bar
| Sol | Total |
| Lords of Appeal in Ordinary | Men
Women
Total
| 12
—
12
| —
—
—
| 12
—
12
|
| Heads of Divisions | Men
Women
Total
| 5
—
5
| —
—
—
| 5
—
5
|
| Lord Justices of Appeal | Men
Women
Total
| 34
1
35
| —
—
—
| 34
1
35
|
| High Court Judges | Men
Women
Total
| 90
7
97
| 1
—
1
| 91
7
98
|
Circuit Judges
(Including Official Referees)
| Men
Women
Total
| 450
31
481
| 71
5
76
| 521
36
557
|
| Recorders | Men
Women
Total
| 724
69
793
| 76
7
83
| 800
76
876
|
| Assistant Recorders | Men
Women
Total
| 267
47
314
| 46
17
63
| 313
64
377
|
| Assistant Recorders in Training | Men
Women
Total
| 109
14
123
| 7
3
10
| 116
17
133
|
District Judges
(Including Family Division)
| Men
Women
Total
| 13
5
18
| 319
47
366
| 332
52
384
|
| Deputy District Judges | Men
Women
Total
| 17
7
24
| 638
83
722
| 655
90
745
|
Metropolitan Stipendiary
Magistrates |
Men
Women
Total
| 16
8
24
| 23
1
24
| 39
9
48
|
| Provincial Stipendiary Magistrates | Men
Women
Total
| 9
3
12
| 31
1
32
| 40
4
44
|
| Acting Stipendiary Magistrates | Men
Women
Total
| 24
8
32
| 67
14
81
| 91
22
113
|
5
See Appendix. Back
| 
