First supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Judicial Appointments Commission
FURTHER INFORMATION FOLLOWING MARCH 2007
APPEARANCE
JAC RELOCATION BUSINESS
STUDY
1. It was agreed at a meeting with the Lord
Chancellor on 7 June 2006 that we would seek expert help on a
business case evaluating the right location for the JAC to meet
business and customer needs.
2. Working in partnership with DCA and on
advice from the Office of Government Commerce, we appointed consultants
at a cost of £37,600 including VAT.
3. The cost was shared between the Department
and the JAC, each contributing £24,000 and £13,600 respectively.
4. As a result of the business case, the
Lord Chancellor agreed in October 2006 that the JAC would not
be relocated within the period of the current Efficiency Review
(ie up to the end of 2010).
CIRCUIT BENCH
LETTERS
5. A range of correspondence was sent out
to candidates to explain decisions taken at various stages of
the process for the Circuit Bench Exercise.
6. It may be helpful first to reiterate
the relevant figures. There were 309 applications for the Circuit
Bench selection exercise. Eight candidates did not progress to
the first sift on the basis of eligibility or character requirements.
At the first sift, 90 candidates were selected for interview and
211 were unsuccessful. After realising that the shortlisting panels
had not been asked to consider the references, those 211 eligible
candidates who were rejected for interview after the first sift
were reconsidered in a second sift. A further 59 candidates were
selected for interview at this second sift. In total 149 were
invited to interview. This was to meet the business requirement
for a list of 75 selectable candidates and in addition 32 immediate
appointments.
7. After the first sift, of the 211 who
were unsuccessful, 78 candidates requested a written explanation
of the decision taken by the selection panels regarding their
application. Following the second sift, a further 40 requested
feedback. These explanations were tailored to each application.
The following letters were issued to candidates:
| A) 28 November 2006
| Letter to unsuccessful candidates after the first sift. [See Annex A]
|
| B) 11 December 2006 | Letter to all applicants after the first sift advising that the Commission had decided to reconsider all those cases in which a candidate was not selected for interview. [See Annex B]
|
| C) 18 January 2007 | Letter to unsuccessful candidates after the second sift. (Note: the content of the letter would vary slightly depending on whether or not a written explanation had been sought after the first sift.) [See Annex C]
|
| D) 9 February 2007 | Letter to all applicants after the second sift from Baroness Prashar clarifying what had happened. [See Annex D]
|
| 30 March 2007 | |
Annex A
Letter to unsuccessful candidates after the first sift
RESTRICTED—PERSONAL
28 November 2006
CIRCUIT JUDGE APPOINTMENT 2006/2007
Thank you for your application for the Circuit Judge Selection
Exercise. I am sorry to have to tell you that your application
has not been successful on this occasion. I know that the result
will be a disappointment but, on behalf of the Judicial Appointments
Commission, I want to thank you for your interest in this post.
If you would like an explanation of the Selection Panel's
decision, please contact my colleague *** by letter or email ***.
Our aim will be to send you a written explanation of the Selection
Panel's decision within 4 weeks of your written requests. If we
receive a large number of requests, we will keep you informed
of any likely delay in meeting our target date.
Thank you again for your interest in this post.
Assistant Director
Circuit Bench Appointments
Annex B
Letter to all applicants after the first sift advising
that the Commission had decided to reconsider all those cases
in which a candidate was not selected for interview
RESTRICTED—PERSONAL
11 December 2006
Circuit Bench Selection Exercise 2006/2007
I refer to my recent letter informing you that you were not
to be invited to interview. I write now to let you know that the
Commission has decided to reconsider all those cases in which
a candidate was not selected for interview.
The Commission has immediately put in hand its reconsideration,
and aims to complete that reconsideration as soon as possible
in January. I shall write to you again, within eight weeks, when
the Commission has reconsidered your application.
I sincerely apologise, on behalf of the Commission, for the
continuing state of uncertainty and concern caused to you as to
outcome of your application.
Assistant Director
Circuit Bench Appointments
Annex C
Letter to unsuccessful candidates after the second
sift
RESTRICTED—PERSONAL
18 January 2007
CIRCUIT JUDGE
APPOINTMENT 2006-07
I am writing further to my letter of 11th December. The reconsideration
of applications has now taken place but I am sorry to have to
tell you that the position has not changed and regrettably you
have not been successful on this occasion. I know that the result
will be a disappointment but, on behalf of the Judicial Appointments
Commission, I want to thank you for your interest in these posts.
If you would like an explanation of the Selection Panel's
decision, please contact my colleague *** by letter or email ***.
OR As you previously requested a written explanation of the selection
panel's decision we will now prepare and send this to you. Our
aim will be to send you a written explanation of the Selection
Panel's decision within 4 weeks of your written requests. If we
receive a large number of requests, we will keep you informed
of any likely delay in meeting our target date.
Please accept my apologies again for any inconvenience or
confusion caused by the requirement to reconsider all applications.
Assistant Director
Circuit Bench Appointments
Annex D
Letter to all applicants after the first sift from
Baroness Prashar clarifying what had happened
RESTRICTED PERSONAL
9 February 2007
Dear ***,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
SELECTION EXERCISE
I am writing to clarify what happened regarding the Circuit
Judge selection exercise.
The information in the Guide for Applicants and on the website
was wrong. It was to a degree contradictory. It was never intended
to conduct the sift solely on the candidate's self-assessment.
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. Those candidates who
were rejected for interview were reconsidered. Those selected
for interview were interviewed. This meant no one was at a disadvantage.
211 candidates were resifted and 59 additional applicants were
selected for interview.
This action was taken by the JAC to correct a mistake it
had made for which I can only apologise. I want to assure you
that no candidate has been disadvantaged and the overall timetable
is unaffected.
The Circuit Judge selection exercise took place under transitional
arrangements using processes set out before the establishment
of the JAC. As from 31 October 2006 we have been introducing a
new system for selecting judges. Further information on the system
is available from our website.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you want any further
information.
Baroness Prashar
Chairman
| 
