News - News - Radical Reform of Judicial Appointments

21 Apr, 2006

The old judicial appointment system has been swept aside for a new, more transparent regime in which it is hoped that the number of those under-represented in the judicairy, including ethnic minorities will be rise.

For so long concerns has been expressed about the transparency of the appointment of judges and Queen’s Counsels (QCs). Such appointments were largely dependent on whom you know without an open selection process and this was unfairly weighted against ethnic minorities, women and solicitors. For this reason in 2001 the government set up an independent body, the Commission for Judicial Appointment (CJA) with the remit to:

• Review the appointment procedures of judges and Queen’s Counsels (QCs), and to
• Investigate complaints about those procedures

The Commission reported annually to the Lord Chancellor and opened up judicial appointment to scrutiny and created a system where judges have to apply for their jobs and complete self-assessment forms. However, the CJA was not involved in the appointment of judges. As a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the CJA became defunct on 31 March 2006. In its place, since the 3rd April 2006 is the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and the Judicial Appointments and Conducts Ombudsman (JACO).

The JAC is chaired by Baroness Ushar Prashar and it has 14 other Commissioners comprising of lawyers, other professional and lay members.

The JAC’s function is to select candidates for judicial appointments based on merit and through an open and fair competition. The aim is to widen the background of judges to reflect the society they serve. The JAC advertise and recommend the best candidate for the judicial appointment (except magistrates) to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor can only appoint those recommended.

The JACO, like JAC came into existence on the 3 April 2006 and investigates complaints about the judicial appointments process and the handling of matters involving judicial discipline or conduct. It can:
• Provide redress in the event of maladministration in the judicial process, such as delay, rudeness, bias, faulty procedures, offering misleading advice, refusal to answer questions and unfair treatment.
• Make recommendations and give constructive feedback, to improve standards and practices in the authorities or departments concerned.