Memorandum submitted by The Judicial Appointments
Commission
CIRCUIT JUDGE SELECTION EXERCISE
BACKGROUND
1. The Circuit Judge selection exercise
took place under transitional arrangements using processes established
before the Judicial Appointments Commission was set up. These
processes were adjusted to take account, among other things, of
the implications of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The selection
exercise was advertised in early September 2006, with a closing
date for applications of 26 September 2006. It is still in progress.
No recommendations for selection have yet been made by the Judicial
Appointments Commission to the Lord Chancellor.
2. Unfortunately, the information in the
Guide for Applicants (which was placed on the website) was wrong.
It was to a degree, contradictory. It was never intended to conduct
the sift solely on the candidates' self-assessments. The guide
was wrong to say so. That is why, as the guide also stated, we
took up all references before the sift began. As soon as we realised
the shortlisting panels had not been asked to consider the references
we took immediate action, namely those eligible candidates, who
were rejected for interview after the first sift, were reconsidered.
This was to ensure that no one was at a disadvantage as a result
of the mistake.
3. There were 309 applications for the Circuit
Bench selection exercise. 90 candidates were originally selected
for interview. 211 were reconsidered and a further 59 candidates
were selected for interview. In total 149 were invited to interview.
This was to meet the business requirement for a list of 75 selectable
candidates.
4. There have been media reports that the
reconsideration of candidates rejected at sift was prompted by
pressure from the senior judiciary for the JAC to change its shortlisting
method. These reports are not accurate. Initially concern was
expressed by a judicial panel member that the proper process had
not been followed. This concern was reinforced when some of the
JAC's Commissioners learned that candidates had been unhappy with
the shortlisting process. The Commission then took steps to ensure
no candidate was disadvantaged. Candidates were kept informed
of the position by letter.
LESSONS LEARNED
5. Although the initial mistakes were the
result of human error, some management failings have been exposed
which the Commission has addressed:
— In future Directors will have closer
management of the conduct of each selection exercise.
— To ensure the accuracy of our printed
materials, all selection exercise material published to candidates
or placed in the public domain by the JAC is now being personally
checked and authorised by a Director.
— To ensure that panels are given correct
and consistent information, a Director, in addition to the Selection
Exercise Manager, will be present when a selection panel is briefed
about the process.
— Panellists will be invited to speak
to the relevant Director immediately if they have any concerns
about the conduct of the selection exercise.
FUTURE SELECTION
PROCESSES
6. The Commission came to an early view
that the selection processes that it inherited were too lengthy
and cumbersome. For this reason, the Commission made it a priority
to develop new streamlined selection processes and to introduce
steps to quality assure each selection exercise.
7. Given the significant differences between
the old and new processes, there are relatively few policy—as
opposed to operational—lessons for the new selection processes
from this exercise. Rather, the conclusion of the Commission is
that the conduct of this exercise confirms their early view that
it was important to put in place new processes, accompanied by
robust quality assurance.
8. The Commission is committed to monitoring
and improving its own performance on a continual basis. It is
therefore keeping under review the new processes which were introduced
as from 31 October 2006.
February 2007
| 
