House of Commons - Constitutional Affairs

Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Written Evidence

Sixth supplementary memorandum submitted by the Judicial Appointments Commission

CIRCUIT BENCH DIVERSITY STATISTICS

I wrote to you on 4 July enclosing a copy of our Annual Report. I thought you would also be interested to see in advance of their publication the diversity statistics for the Circuit Judge selection exercise which will be placed on our website shortly.

This selection exercise was one of those conducted by the JAC before the development of its own processes and was run therefore mostly under DCA process with changes required to comply with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As you know, under the new JAC selection processes we have attempted to achieve fairness and transparency by introducing for all but the most senior appointments a written qualifying test as a means of selecting candidates for interview. This will replace the paper sifts which have previously been used for many competitions. Paper sifts in selection for judicial appointments have been criticised by applicants and referees alike as being heavily reliant on subjective assessments. Under the new regime all candidates (other than those applying for the senior appointments) who demonstrate excellence in a suitable qualifying test will be interviewed and those who do not will not proceed to the next stage. The Commission will however tailor its processes where a small number of appointments is envisaged and in other limited circumstances.

The Circuit Judge selection exercise was conducted under section 94 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 by which the Commission identifies a list of candidates from which recommendations may be made when vacancies have been identified. The diversity statistics for the section 94 list are attached at Annex A in a similar format to those for the High Court sent to you recently. There was also a concurrent request under section 87 for recommendations to fill immediate vacancies but these figures are not included. As you know, there is a difficult balance to be struck by the Commission between openness and respect for the confidentiality of candidates, particularly in relation to recommendations made under section 87 of the Act from section 94 lists, and I shall revert to this later in the year.

I also attach at Annex B a more detailed breakdown of the statistics providing additional information that I thought would be helpful on this occasion in view of the need for two sifts. Finally, it may be helpful if I clarify that the section 94 request from the Lord Chancellor was for a list of 107 names, but the Commission provided a list of 102 names.

Baroness Prashar

Chairman

18 July 2007

Annex A

00259: CIRCUIT JUDGE 2006-07, ENGLAND AND WALES

State of Exercise	Gender			Ethnic Background			Disabled			Professional Background

Eligible Applicants¹	Men	231	76%	White	274	90%	Disabled	15	5%	Solicitor	37	12%
	Women	73	24%	BME	21	7%	Not Disabled/Not provided	289	95%	Barrister	204	67%
	Not provided	0	0%	Any other	2	1%				Salaried Judicial Post Holder	63	21%
				Not provided	7	2%				Other/Unknown	0	0%

Shortlisting²	Men	113	75%	White	138	91%	Disabled	7	5%	Solicitor	10	7%
	Women	38	25%	BME	8	5%	Not Disabled/Not provided	144	95%	Barrister	121	80%
	Not provided	0	0%	Any other	1	1%				Salaried Judicial Post Holder	20	13%
				Not provided	4	3%				Other/Unknown	0	0%

Section 94 list	Men	70	69%	White	95	93%	Disabled	6	6%	Solicitor	6	6%
	Women	32	32%	BME	3	3%	Not Disabled/Not provided	96	94%	Barrister	87	85%
	Not provided	0	0%	Any other	0	0%				Salaried Judicial Post Holder	9	9%
				Not provided	4	4%				Other/Unknown	0	0%

Explanatory Notes:
¹Of the 304 eligible applicants, 2 withdrew before sift.
²Of the 151 applicants invited to interview, 1 applicant withdrew after interview.
Of the eligible applicants who were judicial post holders, 44 (70%) were solicitors and 19 (30%) were barristers.
Of the shortlisted applicants who were judicial post holders 12 (60%) were solicitors and 8 (40%) were barristers.
Of candidates on the section 94 list who were judicial post holders 5 (55%) were solicitors and 4 (45%) were barristers.

Annex B

00259: CIRCUIT JUDGE 2006-07, ENGLAND AND WALES

	1	2		3						4						5					6					7
			Gender				Ethnicity						Disabled						Professional Background

	Stage	Total Candidates	Male		Female		White		BME		Any other		Not provided		Disabled		Not disabled / Not provided		Solicitors		Barristers		Salaried Judicial Postholders		Sol inc SJP		Bar inc SJP		QC

1	Eligible³	304	231	76%	73	24%	274	90%	21	7%	2	1%	7	2%	15	5%	289	95%	37	12%	204	67%	63	21%	81	27%	223	73%	35	12%
2a	First sift	90	71	79%	19	21%	80	89%	5	6%	1	1%	4	4%	3	3%	87	97%	7	8%	74	82%	9	10%	12	13%	78	87%	19	21%
2b	From this sift s94 list	55	40	73%	15	37%	50	91%	1	2%	0	0%	4	7%	3	5%	52	95%	3	5%	50	91%	2	4%	4	7%	51	93%	13	24%
3a	Second sift	61	42	89%	19	31%	58	95%	3	5%	0	0%	0	0%	4	7%	57	93%	3	5%	47	77%	11	18%	10	16%	51	84%	10	16%
3b	From this sift s94 list	47	30	64%	17	36%	45	96%	2	4%	0	0%	0	0%	3	6%	44	94%	3	7%	37	79%	7	15%	7	15%	40	85%	8	17%
4	s94 list	102	70	69%	32	31%	95	93%	3	3%	0	0%	4	4%	6	6%	96	94%	6	6%	87	85%	9	9%	11	11%	91	89%	21	21%

Explanatory Notes
³Of the 304 eligible applicants, 2 withdrew before sift.
⁴Of the 61 applicants from the second sift invited to interview, 1 applicant withdrew after interview.