2 Judicial Appointments Commission
Background
4. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is
a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.
The JAC was created in April 2006 following provisions in the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
5. The JAC was intended to ensure independence and
transparency in the judicial appointments process by making recommendations
to the Lord Chancellor based on fair and open competition. The
JAC makes recommendations for all judicial post-holders except
lay magistrates and supreme court judges. The Lord Chancellor
has discretion to accept or reject a JAC recommendation, or ask
the Commission to reconsider it. The reasons why the Lord Chancellor
can reject a recommendation or ask for reconsideration are limited
and he must provide an explanation if he takes this course.
Purpose
6. The JAC describes its statutory duties as follows:
- to select candidates solely
on merit;
- to select only people of good character; and
- to have regard to the need to encourage diversity
in the range of persons available for judicial selection.
The future of the JAC
7. The Committee met Baroness Prashar, the out-going
Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission on 7 September 2010.
The Committee had a wide ranging discussion which covered the
current performance and future direction of the Judicial Appointment
Commission. We offer our best wishes for her future career.
8. When the Committee took evidence from Baroness
Prashar, the future of the JAC was still the subject of a review.
Since then the review has been completed. The Secretary of State
wrote to Baroness Jay of Paddington, Chairman of the House of
Lords Constitution Committee, with the outcome of the review.
This letter is published as Appendix B. The Secretary of State
said that the JAC and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
will remain in place. However he expressed concern that:
"at times the appointments process can take
too long and cost too much."
He made a several practical recommendations, and
raised a number of constitutional questions which would require
legislation prior to implementation.
The Post
9. According to the Ministry of Justice the role
of the Chair will be to:
- protect the principle of judicial
independence and recruitment of judges on merit on the basis of
fair and open competition;
- build and promote a culture of service delivery
and value for money;
- monitor the implementation and effectiveness
of the Commission's strategy and priorities, and develop an effective
partnership with the Chief Executive to ensure that the Commission
delivers them;
- build and maintain strong and constructive working
relationships with the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary
of State, Parliament, senior civil servants, the legal professions
and key stakeholders;
- lead the Commission in its work to encourage
diversity in judicial appointments;
- provide clarity of vision and strategic leadership
to the Commissioners and staff as the issues identified through
the review of judicial appointments are addressed; and
- be the public face of the Commission, promoting
and acting as an ambassador for its work.
10. The advertisement for the post is published as
Appendix C. The Person Specification is published as Appendix
D. The closing date for applications was 15 November 2010.
The Candidate
11. The Ministry of Justice informed the Committee
on 10 January that the Secretary of State's preferred candidate
for the Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission was Mr Christopher
Stephens. Mr Stephens currently holds a number of public and
private sector roles. His curriculum vitae is attached
as Appendix E.
12. We endorse Mr Stephens' suitability for the
position of Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission and
wish him success in it. We thought that Mr Stephens' experience
in the commercial sector was particularly relevant to ensuring
that the JAC is an efficient organisation. We also value
his experience in making appointments in the civil service but
welcome his recognition that judicial appointments have special
and different requirements.
13. Mr Stephens gave thoughtful and measured answers
to our questions and the Committee is confident in recommending
his appointment. We look forward to taking evidence from
him in the future as part of our ongoing scrutiny of the Commission.
| 
