ANNEX A
Diversity statistics
Twice a year the JAC publishes statistics on the diversity of its recommendations, using the date of
the recommendations report to the Appropriate Authority (Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor or
Senior President of Tribunals) as the outcome of a particular selection exercise. The statistics
include those recommended under Section 87 of the Constitutional Reform Act (CRA) for known
vacancies, and Section 94 for future appointments, who are deemed to be on a list but are not
guaranteed an offer of appointment. The statistical reports can be found on our website here
http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/about-jac/diversity-data.htm
The reports include information on trends in judicial diversity. Compared to pre-JAC, for women the
proportion of applications is significantly higher for Circuit Judge, Recorder, District Judge
(Magistrates’ Courts), District Judge (Civil), Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) and Deputy
District Judge (Civil). It is also higher for High Court, but not significantly higher. The proportion of
recommendations for women is significantly higher for Recorder, District Judge (Civil) and Deputy
District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), and higher but not significantly so for High Court and the other
main courts roles.
For Circuit Judge, in the most recent selection exercise reported on, 26 women were among 54
recommendations (48% as against 31% of applicants and an eligible pool of 30%). In the most
recent High Court selection exercise reported on, three women were recommended for 10
appointments to the Queen’s Bench and Family Divisions. They were recommended in line with
their level in the eligible pool and their proportion of the applications – 30% of the eligible pool and
30% of the applications. In the previous Queen’s Bench and Family Divisions selection exercise
women also made up a third of the recommendations.
Compared to pre JAC, for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) candidates the proportion of
applications is significantly higher for all main courts roles except the High Court, which is higher
but not significantly so. For recommendations there is a non-significant improvement for all main
courts roles, except Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) where there has been a significant
improvement.
The next set of Official Statistics will be published on 4 December.
Judicial Office publishes data on the diversity of the judiciary. The most recent courts data is here
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/courts-diversity-stats-2013-14.xls Judicial
Office HR can answer any questions on their published data.
Quotas
The JAC is currently subject to a large number of statutory duties and obligations. Key amongst
these are its duties to:



Select candidates solely on merit
Have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for
selection (but subject to the first duty), and
Select persons of good character.
But setting aside all existing legislative arrangements, the Commission’s key concerns about the
application of quotas relate to the quality of appointments and with public and international
confidence in the judiciary.
Quality of appointments - a fundamental principle for the Commission is that appointments
should be made on merit from the widest range of candidates. To apply any other factor, such as a
‘quota’ could result in the appointment of people who were not the best qualified to fill a particular
role.
The United Nation’s Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary1, states:
“….. Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with
appropriate training or qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard
against judicial appointments for improper motives. In the selection of judges, there shall
be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status…..
…..Promotion of judges, wherever such a system exists, should be based on objective
factors, in particular ability, integrity and experience….”
This is further underpinned by the Commonwealth Principles on the Accountability of and
Relationship between the Three Braches of Government, which recognises the need for
“progressive” removal of imbalances, such as adopted by the JAC, rather than a more radical
approach such as the application of quotas2:
“…The appointment process, whether or not involving an appropriately constituted and
representative judicial services commission, should be designed to guarantee the quality
and independence of mind of those selected for appointment at all levels of the judiciary.
…Judicial appointments to all levels of the judiciary should be made on merit with
appropriate provision for the progressive removal of gender imbalance and of other
historic factors of discrimination.
The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers also recognises the need for selections to be
subject to an objective criteria and based on merit:
“…Decisions concerning the selection and career of judges should be based on objective
criteria pre-established by law or by the competent authorities. Such decisions should be
based on merit, having regard to the qualifications, skills and capacity required to
adjudicate cases by applying the law while respecting human dignity3…”
Public and international confidence in the judiciary – the JAC is concerned that there could be
implications for the judiciary if there were any widespread perception that appointments were not
based solely on merit, but were subject to some additional consideration such as the application of
a quota. While this could have an implication domestically, there could also be wider, international
implications particularly if the UK’s competitors sought to use that to undermine the quality of the
existing judiciary in an attempt to take international dispute resolution away from the UK courts.
The reputational and financial implications would be significant4.
1
Endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985.
2
As agreed by Law Ministers and endorsed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Abuja, Nigeria, 2003
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence,
efficiency and responsibilities (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010 at the 1098th meeting of
the Ministers' Deputies)
3
The UK is the world’s leading centre for international legal services according to TheCityUK’s Legal Services 2014
report published 30 January 2014. The UK accounts for around 7% of global law firms’ fee revenue, making it by far the
largest market in Europe. The value of the legal services sector to the UK economy doubled in the last decade has
increased from £15.8bn in 2002 to £20.4bn (1.5% of GDP) in 2012, with the positive contribution to the UK’s balance of
payments nearly doubling in the same period to nearly £3bn. Gross fees generated by law firms in the UK increased by
5% in the financial year 2012/2013 to £28.5bn. London is the world’s leading centre for all forms of dispute resolution,
whether litigation, arbitration or mediation, underlined by the fact that 40% of governing law in all global corporate
arbitrations is English law and that London is viewed as the leading preferred centre of arbitration. The total number of
4
The Commission believes that the JAC’s diversity performance should continue to be
benchmarked against eligible pool data (approximation of the number of people who are able to
meet the job-specific entry requirements). The JAC reports on the progress being made in its sixmonthly official statistics – http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/about-jac/diversity-data.htm
Diversity and equality duties
Under the CRA 2005, the JAC has a statutory duty to:
 select candidates solely on merit
 select only people of good character
 have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for
selection
In addition to our duty under the CRA, the Equality Act 2010 applied a general duty to public
authorities to:
 eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation
 advance equality of opportunity between different groups
 foster good relations between different groups
The JAC is also subject to specific duties set out in regulations which came into force on 10
September 2011, which, require it to publish relevant, proportionate information demonstrating
compliance with the equality duty and to set specific, measurable equality objectives.
The JAC's single equality scheme sets out our commitment to discharge these duties in one
document, our Equality Objectives, which you can see on our website here
http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/about-jac/351.htm
Testing
Anonymously marked qualifying tests shortlist candidates objectively for most large exercises
below Circuit Judge level. They involve analysis, making decisions and application of the law, all
under time pressure and usually in a particular jurisdiction.
The tests are designed to be accessible to all candidates regardless of background, but it is
inevitable that familiarity with and/or knowledge of the jurisdiction will be helpful. Preparation
materials if used are circulated to all candidates in advance and if necessary candidates are
advised in advance if there are particular areas of law with which to familiarise themselves.
All qualifying tests used by the JAC - the tests and the marking schedules - are subject to a quality
and equality assurance process. Suitability is assessed by means of two dry runs with a range of
volunteers.
After a dry-run of the test using mock-candidates the JAC Advisory Group, composed of members
of the judiciary and representatives of the legal profession and a JAC Commissioner, review each
test to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
Tests are sat online at a time of the candidate’s choosing within a set period. On our website we
publish previous tests, feedback reports on tests and marking schedules – see here
http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/selection-process/past-tests-and-feedback.htm
As part of the JAC’s selection process review, we are considering widening the scope of online
qualifying tests, to include assessment of candidate behaviours through the use of questions on
particular situations/scenarios they may face as a judge.
commercial and civil disputes resolved through dispute resolution in London increased by around 3% in 2012 to over
19,000. Around 4,700 of these comprised international disputes.
Vacancy requests
The selection process typically starts when the JAC receives a vacancy request from Her Majesty's
Courts and Tribunals Service or the Ministry of Justice. The vacancy request includes the number
of vacancies, a job description and the eligibility requirements set by statute for the post. It may
also contain additional selection criteria set by the business area.
A recent example of the revised vacancy request information for Circuit Judge is published on our
website here in the ‘downloads’ section on the right http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/selectionprocess/selection-exercises/2243.htm It should be read in conjunction with the text on the main
web page to see other information included in a vacancy request, such as salaried part-time
working opportunities.