130 likes | 227 Views
Judicial Diversity. Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Aimed at: increasing independence of judiciary increasing diversity of appointments Created Supreme Court independent of Parliament Allowed for Lord Chancellor in Commons Created independent JAC
E N D
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Aimed at: increasing independence of judiciary increasing diversity of appointments • Created Supreme Court independent of Parliament • Allowed for Lord Chancellor in Commons • Created independent JAC In 2005 there were: 3,800 FT and PT court judges 640 women (17%) 114 BAME (3%)
JAC statutory duties • To select candidates solely on merit • To select only people of good character • To have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection for appointment
Difficult birth – and sustained scrutiny 2007 Nooney Review - efficiency 2008 MoJ LEAN review - efficiency 2009 Neuberger Review - diversity • End-to-End Review - organisation/management 2010/11 Public Bodies Bill: low point for JAC
Scrutiny continued… 2011/12 MoJ Review - appointments system as a whole, with focus on diversity 2011/12 HoL Constitution Committee Review -appointments system, including diversity New focus from then LC: - Cost - Speed - Diversity 2013 Crime and Courts Act – enhanced and extended role of JAC
Crime and Courts Act 2013 • Equal merit provision • Increased lay membership and diversity of selection panels for senior appointments • Transferred chairmanship of panel to select LCJ and President UKSC to lay members of appointments bodies • Transferred responsibility for selecting deputy High Court judges to JAC • Statutory diversity duties for LCJ and LC
JAC Diversity Strategy • Fair and non-discriminatory selection processes – now incorporating EMP • Advertising and Outreach – further targeted through candidate attraction project • Working with others to break down barriers – including via Diversity Forum WomenBAME Diverse staff: 58% 19% Diverse selection panels: 64% 8% Diverse Commission: 53% 13%
Selection process • Candidates submit competency-based application form • Short-listing by online test for larger exercises or paper sift for smaller/senior exercises • Selection day: interview and combination of: - presentation on subject specified by JAC; - role play exercise (usually for entry level posts); - situational questioning; - competence-based questions around the qualities and abilities required for the office.
Performance of women candidates I • Applications from – and recommendations of - women are higher under JAC • Proportion of applications is significantly higher for 6/7 posts, and recommendations significantly higher for 3/7 posts • Women making good progress at all levels of competition up to and including Court of Appeal: • 41% (1,668) of recommended candidates • 42% (1,173) of recommendations for legal roles • 35% (530) of recommendations for courts
Performance of women candidates II • In last District Judge and Circuit Judge exercises, 54% (29/54) and 48% (26/54) of successful candidates were women • Women now make up 25% of courts judiciary – 830 of 3,282 judges – an increase of 8% (190) in nine years • Women make up 45% of tribunals judiciary - 2,717 of 6,084 judges • Progress at most senior levels still slow
Performance of BAME candidates I • Applications from – and recommendations of - BAME candidates are higher under JAC • Proportion of applications from BAME candidates is significantly higher for 6/7 posts • BAME recommendations are significantly higher for one of the posts • BAME candidates have generally been recommended in line with level in eligible pool: - 10% (398) of recommended candidates - 7% (194) of recommendations for legal roles - 7% (105) of recommendations for court roles
Performance of BAME candidates II • 6% of courts judiciary have BAME backgrounds – 157 of 3,282 judges – double 2005 proportion • 13% of tribunals judiciary are BAME – 740 of 6,054 judges • Progress at senior levels still slow
Current and future challenges • Diversity of candidate pool an ongoing challenge • Need multiple routes in to the judiciary – and up • Impact of O’Brien and Miller litigation – reduction in fee-paid vacancies • Wider, ongoing financial constraints