Skip to site navigation

Appointments & Diversity: A Judiciary for the 21st Century

15 February 2012

Ministry of Justice Consultation Paper prepared by Robert Hazell, Kate Malleson and Graham Gee
Read the full submission »

Summary

  • There is a legitimate role for the executive in the appointment of judges. Not onlydoes executive involvement provide a check on the decision-making of the JAC, and the selection commissions responsible for the most senior appointments, it also supplies an important mechanism of political accountability. Above all, executive involvement is critical for fostering the executive’s trust and confidence in the judges. Similar considerations apply to Parliament. If the executive and Parliament are wholly or largely excluded from the appointment process, they might be less inclined to respect the role and independence of the judiciary.
  • The Consultation Paper envisages the reduced involvement of the Lord Chancellorin appointments at the lower ranks of the judiciary, but increased involvement at the higher ranks, through participating in the ad hoc selection panels for the most senior judicial appointments.
  • On appointments to the lower levels of the judiciary, our view is that the goal ofincreasing diversity requires the continued involvement of the Lord Chancellor. Theexperience in a number of overseas jurisdictions, as well as in the UK, demonstrates that improving diversity does not happen automatically as a result of changes in the composition of the legal profession. There is no convincing evidence of a “trickle up” effect. Rather, increasing judicial diversity requires political will to push for reforms, some of which might not be supported by the judiciary or legal profession. Removing the Lord Chancellor from the process of selection to the lower ranks of the judiciary removes the opportunity for the exercise of this political will.
  • On senior appointments, we welcome the impetus to give the Lord Chancellor agreater role. We disagree, however, with the suggested way of doing so. Rather than the Lord Chancellor participating in the ad hoc selection commissions, we favour the commissions providing the Lord Chancellor a short-list of three candidates to choose from, each candidate having been identified by the commission as well qualified and suitable for appointment. This allows for an appropriate degree of executive input by providing greater scope for the Lord Chancellor to promote judicial diversity, whilst also maintaining merit-based selection. It also maintains the Lord Chancellor’s role as a “back-stop” in case of error or malpractice.
  • There should be no serving Justices of the Supreme Court on the panel that selectsany of the Justices (including the President and Deputy President). It is inappropriate for any members of the court to be directly involved in the selection of the other members.
  • A consistent theme in our interviews is that the Constitutional Reform Act is rigidand overly prescriptive. Several interviewees have cited the stipulation of the number of Commissioners in Schedule 12 as an example of this, and hence we welcome the proposal for greater flexibility in determining the composition of the JAC. We agree with the suggested approached to delivering changes to the appointment process.
  • As indicated at paragraph 2, we believe that there are good reasons for involvingParliament in the appointment of senior judges (e.g. the Justices of the UK Supreme Court, the Lord Chief Justice and the Heads of Division). Statements of our views on the scope for parliamentary involvement in judicial appointments and on the dubious strength of some of the arguments made against such involvement can be found in the written evidence we supplied to the House of Lords Constitution Committee as part of its inquiry into the judicial appointment process.

Join the Debate

Blog

News

The 2010 Parliament and a look forward: An end-of term report from Lord Lisvane

Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:00:21 +0000

On 16 March 2015, Lord Lisvane, who as Sir Robert Rogers served as Clerk of the House of Commons 2011-14, reflected upon the 2010 Parliament and speculated about potential future changes in Westminster at a Constitution Unit seminar held in the House of Lords. Fathma Khalid reports on the event. With the May 2015 election […]

Read more...

Definitely not business as usual: Predictions and preparations for May 2015

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:00:32 +0000

On 12 March 2015 Lord Gus O’Donnell and David Cowling spoke at a Unit seminar entitled ‘Forecasting the 2015 Election result, and preparing for a hung Parliament’. Ruxandra Serban reports on the event. With just 6 weeks left until polling day, the outcome of the May 2015 general election remains highly unpredictable. With few signs […]

Read more...

How should parliament decide who will be the next Prime Minister: by a nomination vote, or the Queen’s Speech?

Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:00:22 +0000

Robert Hazell weighs up options for establishing who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, which will be particularly significant in the likely event of another coalition. This is the fourth in a series of posts about government formation after the election. The Cabinet Manual explains the rules as follows: ‘… the Sovereign will invite the person […]

Read more...
Mailing List

Connect with us

RSSFlickr

Footer menu