Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Judicial Appointments Commission

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent statutory body tasked with selecting candidates for judicial office in the courts and tribunals of England and Wales, as well as for certain tribunals exercising powers across the United Kingdom. Established by the and operational since April 2006, the JAC replaced a system in which the held primary responsibility for judicial appointments, thereby advancing the and reducing executive influence over the judiciary. The Commission conducts processes involving applications, qualifying tests, assessments, and interviews to recommend a single candidate for each vacancy to the , who formally appoints subject to confirmation by the Lord Chief Justice for senior roles. While prioritizing merit as the sole criterion, the JAC employs an "equal merit" provision—introduced via the Crime and Courts Act 2013—permitting preference for candidates from underrepresented groups when multiple applicants demonstrate identical qualifications, a mechanism aimed at enhancing judicial diversity amid ongoing parliamentary scrutiny over its implementation and effectiveness. Composed of a chairman, lay members, judicial members, and professional members to reflect diverse perspectives, the JAC publishes annual statistics on applications, recommendations, and diversity outcomes, revealing persistent challenges in broadening the judiciary's demographic despite targeted and refinements.

Establishment and Legal Basis

Historical Context and Reforms

Prior to the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission, judicial appointments in were primarily the responsibility of the , who exercised significant discretion in selecting candidates for judgeships across various courts. The process involved informal consultations with senior judges, such as the , but lacked formal transparency or standardized criteria, allowing the —simultaneously a cabinet minister, head of the judiciary, and Speaker of the —to wield executive influence over selections. This hybrid role fostered perceptions of opacity, as appointments were often made through private soundings rather than open competitions, raising concerns about potential favoritism toward politically aligned candidates or those from elite social networks. Critics argued that the system's reliance on executive discretion undermined by exposing appointments to political pressures, contravening core principles of constitutional design that require insulating the from governmental control to ensure impartial . Historical unease with such fused powers dated back to theoretical frameworks emphasizing functions to prevent abuse, though the UK's unwritten had long tolerated the Lord Chancellor's multifaceted position. By the late 1990s, accumulating evidence of executive-judicial entanglements amplified calls for reform; for instance, the 1998 Pinochet extradition case revealed conflicts of interest, as a Law Lord with undisclosed ties to an intervening party () participated in deliberations, eroding and spotlighting the risks of non-transparent selection processes. Reform momentum built in the early amid broader constitutional reviews, driven by the need to formalize merit-based assessments and reduce ministerial power over senior appointments, thereby aligning appointments more closely with evidentiary standards of competence rather than discretionary judgment. Proponents contended that empirical patterns of appointments—often favoring barristers from a narrow pool—reflected systemic biases rather than pure merit, necessitating structural changes to promote and without compromising judicial . These pressures culminated in legislative action to devolve appointment authority from the , prioritizing causal mechanisms that safeguard judicial detachment from political cycles.

Creation under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005

The Judicial Appointments Commission was created by section 61 of the , which received on 24 March 2005 and established the body as a corporate entity governed by Schedule 12 of the Act. This legislation shifted the primary power to recommend candidates for judicial offices in from the to the Commission, with the aim of insulating appointments from direct executive involvement and thereby bolstering . The Commission became operational on 3 April 2006, functioning as an executive to oversee selections for most judicial roles below the . The structure incorporates 15 commissioners to ensure a mix of perspectives, including lay members, serving or retired judges, and legal practitioners, fostering through diverse expertise rather than reliance on a single figure. This composition was intended to mitigate potential biases in traditional appointment methods while maintaining rigorous standards, as the Chancellor's veto power was curtailed to a limited consultation role post-transfer. Statutorily, selections must proceed solely on merit, encompassing candidates' intellectual capacity, judgment, legal knowledge, and good character, with the Commission obligated to prioritize these criteria above all else. Although section 64 requires efforts to promote in the applicant pool—such as through —this duty remains subordinate to merit under section 63, permitting diversity as a deciding factor only among equally meritorious candidates to avoid compromising judicial competence.

Organizational Structure

Composition of Commissioners

The Judicial Appointments Commission comprises 15 commissioners: a lay chair, five other lay members with no legal practice or judicial experience, six judicial members (of whom at least two must hold judicial office), two professional members each possessing legal qualifications but no current or recent judicial office, and one member experienced as a or lay member. This composition, mandated by Schedule 12 to the and detailed in the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, establishes seven commissioners without practicing legal expertise (the six lay members plus the lay or representative) against eight with such backgrounds (the six judges and two professionals), aiming to balance with broader public input. Appointments occur through a combination of open competition and judicial nomination: twelve commissioners, including the lay chair, are selected via public advertisement and merit-based assessment processes managed independently, while the three additional judicial members are nominated by the Judges' Council (for senior court judges) or the (for a judge). All are formally appointed by on the recommendation of the , who must consult the Lord Chief Justice and, for certain roles, the JAC itself or relevant professional bodies to ensure suitability and independence. Commissioners serve in their personal capacity, not as representatives of any group, with eligibility excluding serving civil servants and emphasizing personal integrity, judgment, and relevant skills. Terms of office are set at up to five years per , though recent shows standard terms of three years to facilitate and prevent entrenchment, with renewals permitted provided does not exceed ten years. This structure supports ongoing refreshment of perspectives while maintaining continuity. The lay element, intended to enhance democratic legitimacy and counter perceptions of judicial self-perpetuation, has drawn critique from some judicial observers for risking underemphasis on arcane legal competencies essential to evaluating judicial merit, potentially prioritizing or public-facing qualities over technical proficiency.

Staff and Administrative Framework

The Judicial Appointments Commission employs approximately 100 permanent staff members, supplemented by agency personnel and contracted specialists, to support its core functions of managing judicial selection exercises. These professionals handle administrative tasks such as processing applications, coordinating assessments, and providing logistical support for nationwide campaigns, distinct from the strategic oversight provided by commissioners. Staff roles include , development, digital operations, and encompassing and . Administrative leadership falls under the Chief Executive, who serves as the Accounting Officer responsible for day-to-day operations, , and with public spending rules. The senior team comprises the Deputy Chief Executive for Strategy and Policy, Head of Operations and Digital, Head of , and Head of Panel Member Engagement, ensuring efficient delivery of selection processes through , , and panel coordination. Staff recruitment and retention adhere to merit-based principles under the , with pay and pensions aligned to frameworks, fostering an inclusive operational environment. As an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the , the JAC receives funding via quarterly , with its 2024-25 budget totaling £10.29 million, of which staff costs accounted for the majority at £7.73 million. Expenditure emphasizes value for money, with procurement and spending subject to delegated authorities and oversight by the and . The Commission maintains operational efficiency by processing over 6,000 applications annually across 30-35 selection exercises, as seen in 2024-25 when 6,384 applications yielded 944 selections. Key tools include a digital application platform launched in 2020, which facilitates online qualifying tests used by over 4,500 candidates in recent years, alongside hybrid working models and remote delivery for fee-paid judicial roles. The organization operates from a central hub at in following a 2025 relocation, enabling streamlined nationwide recruitment without regional offices. Accountability is ensured through annual reports and audited accounts submitted to since the JAC's inception in 2006, detailing performance metrics, financials, and governance, with quarterly reviews by the .

Judicial Selection Process

Criteria for Merit and Competence

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) evaluates candidates for judicial office primarily on merit, defined through a structured competency framework emphasizing intellectual rigor, personal , and practical judicial aptitude. Core criteria include exceptional legal and analytical skills, such as the to assimilate , exercise in applying to facts, and demonstrate deep of legal principles, assessed via written submissions, qualifying tests, and situational exercises. Personal qualities form another pillar, encompassing , , under pressure, and in court proceedings, evaluated through references, interviews, and role-play simulations that test decision-making in realistic scenarios. Communication abilities are scrutinized for clarity, persuasiveness, and adaptability to diverse audiences, including litigants and colleagues, with evidence drawn from professional experience and assessed interactions. Merit assessment prioritizes verifiable benchmarks of proven legal acumen, such as a minimum of five to seven years' post-qualification experience in relevant practice areas, judicial shadowing records, and performance in independent assessments weighted equally with other evidence sources. Candidates must provide specific, evidenced examples against the framework's descriptors—graded from outstanding to insufficient—rather than general assertions, ensuring selections reflect empirical demonstrations of competence over unproven potential or extraneous factors like demographics. This approach aligns with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005's mandate for selections solely on merit, supplemented by good character checks that probe professional conduct, financial integrity, and ethical lapses via disclosures and validations. To uphold these standards, the JAC recommends only candidates deemed strongest on merit, with the empowered to reject or request reconsideration but exercising this veto sparingly post-2005 establishment, including no outright rejections for senior appointments and only isolated instances of reconsideration, signaling rigorous pre-recommendation filtering. Pre-JAC, under the 's direct , appointments similarly emphasized through informal consultations and empirical track records, maintaining high thresholds without formalized frameworks but yielding comparably selective outcomes based on historical practice data. This continuity underscores a causal emphasis on judicial performance predictors, such as analytical precision and ethical reliability, over broader representational goals in core merit evaluations.

Procedures for Recommendations and Appointments

The Judicial Appointments Commission employs a structured, multi-stage selection process for judicial vacancies, commencing with public advertising on its official website to attract a broad pool of applicants via open competition. Eligible candidates must demonstrate requisite qualifications, either legal practice or non-legal experience as specified, alongside good character, before advancing. Applications are initially sifted through mechanisms such as paper reviews, online qualifying tests, or telephone assessments to shortlist viable contenders, with independent third-party evaluations often integrated to assess competencies objectively. Shortlisted individuals proceed to selection days, which incorporate panel interviews, scenario-based exercises, and peer discussions to evaluate performance under scrutiny. Prior to final deliberations, the conducts mandatory statutory consultations with senior members or designated experts on the candidates' suitability, soliciting evidence-based, impartial observations unless the Chairman and relevant authority waive this step for efficiency. These protocols ensure by mandating documented, substantive inputs rather than unsubstantiated views, fostering in candidate appraisal. Following consultations and assessments, the JAC's Selection and Character Committee—composed of commissioners—deliberates and selects a single recommended candidate per vacancy, forwarding the nomination directly to the . The holds statutory authority to accept the recommendation outright, reject it once (providing written justification), or request its reconsideration with rationale; a subsequent rejection necessitates the JAC initiating a fresh nomination from prior shortlist remnants or anew. Formal occurs via royal warrant, executed by the upon the 's advice. Empirical data underscore the process's efficacy in merit adjudication, with Lord Chancellors overriding JAC recommendations in merely five instances—via outright rejection or reconsideration requests—amid nearly 3,000 submissions from onward, yielding an override rate below 0.2%. This rarity of interventions post-2006 establishment reflects the Commission's rigorous filtering, minimizing political interference while upholding selection integrity. Entire exercises typically span several months, with average durations varying by judicial level (e.g., district judge appointments averaging 6-9 months), as tracked and published by the JAC to maintain procedural predictability.

Interactions with Government and Judiciary

Role of the Lord Chancellor

The receives recommendations from the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) for judicial offices in , excluding the most senior positions such as the Lord Chief Justice. Upon receipt, the may accept the recommendation and forward it for formal appointment, request reconsideration by the JAC (limited to once per vacancy), or reject it outright (also limited to once, with written reasons provided to the JAC citing concerns over the candidate's merit). If the JAC submits a second recommendation following a request for reconsideration or rejection, the must accept it, ensuring the executive's influence remains constrained to safeguard against undue interference. Under section 3 of the , the bears a primary statutory duty to uphold the continued independence of the , which extends to the appointments process by requiring evaluations focused on merit, competence, and integrity rather than extraneous factors. This duty mandates annual reporting to on actions taken to protect , including oversight of appointment procedures to prevent politicization. In practice, the collaborates with the —over which they preside—to align appointments policy with broader governmental objectives, such as resource allocation and judicial training, while maintaining procedural separation from JAC deliberations. Historical interventions illustrate the veto's use to enforce quality standards, with Lord Chancellors rejecting only five of approximately 4,300 JAC recommendations between 2006 and 2014, typically on grounds of insufficient merit evidenced by performance data or references. Notable instances include Kenneth Clarke's 2011 rejections of tribunal candidates deemed below required standards and three circuit judge nominees lacking adequate courtroom experience. Critics, including parliamentary committees, have raised concerns over potential politicization in high-profile vacancies, arguing that even limited vetoes could erode public confidence if perceived as influenced by government priorities, though empirical rarity of rejections—acceptance rates exceeding 99%—supports claims of restraint.

Oversight by Related Bodies

The Judicial Appointments and Conduct (JACO) provides an external mechanism for reviewing complaints about the fairness and handling of the JAC's processes, particularly regarding candidate applications and maladministration in investigations. Established in 2006 under provisions linked to the , JACO examines whether bodies like the JAC have properly addressed allegations of procedural errors, offering remedies such as recommendations for apologies or process improvements where mishandling is found. In 2023, for instance, JACO received 12 complaints related to appointments processes, upholding elements in two cases involving delays and communication failures by the JAC. Parliamentary select committees exercise oversight through scrutiny of the JAC's annual reports and key personnel appointments, assessing operational efficiency, transparency, and adherence to merit-based criteria. The Justice Committee, for example, has reviewed JAC reports since 2010, questioning commissioners on selection outcomes and diversity impacts while probing for or systemic biases in recommendations. Pre-appointment hearings for the JAC Chair, conducted by committees like the or , evaluate candidates' suitability to maintain independence, as seen in the 2023 scrutiny of Lord Kakkar's nomination, where emphasis was placed on safeguarding merit over external pressures. This process ensures accountability without direct intervention in individual selections. Complementary institutions contribute to systemic coherence by aligning JAC outputs with broader judicial standards. The Judicial College, under the Lord Chief Justice, provides training to newly appointed judges recommended by the JAC, incorporating feedback loops on appointee readiness to inform future selection refinements, though without formal veto power. For senior roles, ad hoc selection commissions for justices include a JAC-nominated member alongside the court President and other stakeholders, cross-verifying processes to uphold consistency across judicial tiers. These interactions promote alignment but remain non-binding on the JAC's core functions.

Performance and Outcomes

Achievements in Promoting Independence

Since its establishment on 3 April 2006 under the , the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has depoliticized judicial selections by shifting responsibility from the Lord Chancellor's informal consultations to an independent body comprising lay members, judicial members, and professionals, thereby strengthening . This reform replaced pre-2006 practices reliant on secret soundings, which risked perceptions of favoritism, with structured, merit-focused procedures. The JAC has enhanced through mandatory public advertisements of vacancies and publication of explicit selection criteria emphasizing merit and good character, minimizing opportunities for inherent in opaque executive-led processes. Post-2006, the commission has processed increasing volumes of appointments efficiently, with funding peaking in 2008/09 but handling more applications at reduced unit costs through streamlined online systems and refined protocols. Recommendations to the or senior judicial authorities are accepted in nearly all cases, as rejections occur only on exceptional grounds with required written justification, underscoring the robustness of merit-based outcomes over political vetoes. This framework has contributed to fewer controversies regarding political influence in appointments compared to the pre-reform era, where executive discretion often drew criticism for lacking ; the JAC's independent operations have fostered a respected constitutional with robust , affirming judicial .

Impact on Judicial Diversity and Representation

Since its establishment in 2006, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has coincided with gradual increases in the representation of women and ethnic minorities among judicial appointees, though progress has been uneven across court levels and slower in senior roles. In courts-based judiciary, the proportion of female judges rose from approximately 20% in 2010 to 37% by April 2023, with new appointments contributing to this trend as women comprised around 50% of entrants to salaried and fee-paid posts in recent years. Ethnic minority representation in court judges similarly advanced from 4.8% in 2010 to about 10-12% by the early 2020s, driven by higher diversity in applicant pools for lower-tier roles and recommendation rates for ethnic minority candidates aligning closely with overall success rates in JAC selection exercises. These shifts correlate with JAC's tracking and efforts, such as targeted encouragement for underrepresented groups, without evidence of reduced thresholds, as diverse candidates have maintained comparable shortlisting and recommendation outcomes to non-diverse peers in merit-based assessments. For instance, in 2022-2023, ethnic minority applicants were recommended for at rates proportional to their application volume, and women outperformed on recommendation metrics by 4 percentage points in non-legal exercises. However, underrepresentation persists in senior positions, where women held 26% of and above roles as of 2021, and ethnic minorities remain below 5% in such benches, reflecting limited qualified applicant pools from historically less diverse senior legal professions rather than selection biases. Tribunal judiciary shows higher diversity, with women at over 50% and ethnic minorities more proportionally represented, attributable to broader eligibility criteria and applicant demographics, though courts lag due to stricter experience requirements tied to traditional career paths. JAC annual reports indicate these patterns hold across competence evaluations, with no statistical divergence in quality scores between diverse and non-diverse appointees, underscoring that gains stem from expanded pipelines rather than adjusted standards.

Criticisms and Debates

Concerns over Diversity Initiatives vs. Strict Meritocracy

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) mandates selections based solely on merit, as stipulated by the , but the Crime and Courts Act 2013 introduced an "equal merit" provision under section 159 of the , permitting preference for candidates from underrepresented groups—initially focusing on women and ethnic minorities—when multiple applicants are assessed as equally meritorious. This mechanism aims to advance diversity without overt quotas, yet critics contend it injects subjectivity into merit evaluations, as determining "equal merit" relies on qualitative judgments prone to bias rather than objective metrics like experience or caseload outcomes. For instance, since the JAC's in 2006, selectors have rarely, if ever, invoked the provision, highlighting its practical elusiveness and potential to mask preferences under a veneer of parity. Philosophical and legal analyses argue that the equal merit principle lacks epistemic justification, asserting that diversity per se does not enhance judicial or decision quality, and may instead prioritize demographic over substantive excellence. Sandy Steel's examination posits that , not , drives effective adjudication, and allowing diversity as a tie-breaker risks diluting standards without of improved or outcomes. Empirical studies reinforce : an analysis of over 30,000 immigration appeals found non-white female judges more likely to rule in favor of appellants than other demographics, suggesting may influence rulings rather than fostering broader perspectives or neutrality. Such findings challenge assumptions that diverse benches inherently mitigate biases, potentially introducing group-specific leanings that undermine the first-principles demand for case-specific, -bound reasoning over representational symbolism. Conservative legal scholars and commentators warn that diversity initiatives foster "box-ticking" cultures, where less seasoned candidates advance at the expense of proven high-achievers, eroding in judicial rigor. Critics like those from Policy Exchange-affiliated voices highlight how restricting equal merit to gender and ethnicity—excluding other factors like or socioeconomic —arbitrarily elevates certain identities, risking appointments of individuals with shallower benches or narrower expertise. While proponents cite legitimacy gains from mirroring societal demographics, detractors emphasize that strict safeguards against such compromises, as historical data shows elite, merit-selected judiciaries delivering consistent, apolitical justice without mandated . These debates underscore tensions between representational goals and the causal imperative of prioritizing verifiable judicial aptitude to maintain institutional .

Accountability, Transparency, and Effectiveness Issues

Critics have highlighted the Judicial Appointments Commission's structure as fostering insufficient accountability, with its commissioners—appointed as a —exercising significant discretion in panel deliberations that lack external oversight or detailed public rationale for selections. This opacity is compounded by reliance on informal "secret soundings" from judicial figures, which have been described as arbitrary and resistant to challenge, prompting judicial complaints of systemic unfairness in the process. In response, Policy Exchange's 2021 analysis argued that the framework unduly empowers sitting judges at the expense of executive input, recommending statutory reforms to bolster the Lord Chancellor's authority over senior appointments to ensure democratic checks without undermining . Calls for expanded ministerial involvement have intensified amid concerns over the commission's insulation from political accountability, with legal commentator David Stott in urging retention of a "real and meaningful" veto to counterbalance judicial dominance in selections. This perspective aligns with broader right-leaning critiques positing that diminished executive leverage enables appointments susceptible to interpretive biases favoring expansive judicial roles over textual fidelity, potentially entrenching activism in rulings on constitutional matters. On effectiveness, the JAC has drawn scrutiny for protracted selection timelines contributing to judicial vacancies, including acute shortages of judges as of , where operational claims of efficiency have been contested against evidence of persistent backlogs. Conservative leadership contender , in October 2025, proposed abolishing the commission outright to vest appointment authority directly in ministers, arguing this would address perceived failures in delivering impartial, merit-driven outcomes while curbing risks of ideologically skewed benches. Such reforms aim to recalibrate the system toward greater responsiveness, though proponents acknowledge the need to preserve core independence safeguards.

Recent Developments

Policy Shifts on Equal Merit Provisions

In June 2024, the (JAC) outlined in its 2024-2027 strategy a formal review of the equal merit provision to assess whether sufficient evidence exists for extending its application beyond candidates who are women or from ethnic minorities. This potential expansion aligns with ongoing diversity targets, including underrepresentation data showing ethnic minorities at approximately 7% of senior judiciary roles as of 2024, despite recruitment efforts. The statutory equal merit mechanism, enshrined in the , permits preference for a only when two or more applicants are rigorously assessed as indistinguishable in merit, with the primary duty remaining selection "solely on merit." JAC officials justify the review as a data-driven step to broaden representation without undermining competence, citing persistent gaps—such as women holding just 28% of positions in 2024—while insisting applications occur only after exhaustive merit evaluation. Critiques of the proposed extension highlight risks to , arguing that widening criteria to groups like disabled individuals or solicitors could incentivize subjective "equal" assessments, thereby diluting perceived judicial quality and in impartial . Historical data indicate the provision's limited invocation, applied in fewer than 10% of tied selections since , underscoring its marginal impact on while raising concerns that expansions might prioritize outcomes over evidential ties. The has responded by reaffirming the legal framework's emphasis on merit as non-negotiable, with diversity tie-breakers subordinate to maintain statutory equilibrium, though observers note that iterative policy tweaks amid diversity pressures could erode confidence if perceived as lowering thresholds.

Ongoing Reforms and Reviews

In its annual reports from 2021 to 2024, the Judicial Appointments Commission conducted internal evaluations of its selection processes, emphasizing adherence to statutory goals of and merit-based appointments through fair and open competition. These assessments reviewed the effectiveness of competence frameworks, with data showing consistent recommendations of candidates deemed appointable on merit, amid 34 selection exercises reported in the 2024-2025 period alone. Parliamentary inquiries, including a 2025 written question to the Secretary of State for Justice, probed the Commission's transparency and accountability mechanisms, questioning whether reforms could enhance rigor without undermining independence. Responses affirmed the Commission's statutory duty under the to prioritize merit, while noting no plans for structural overhaul. Academic commentary in early 2025 proposed limited parliamentary scrutiny of senior appointments—modeled on oversight of bodies like the Comptroller and Auditor General—to reinforce merit and public confidence, without introducing political vetoes. Proposals for enhanced rigor include refining selection criteria to emphasize demonstrable expertise, as outlined in the Commission's 2024-2027 , which commits to providing evidence-based input on debates affecting merit standards. Critics have suggested recalibrating the influence of lay commissioners relative to judicial and legal members to better align evaluations with specialized competence, though defenders argue lay input sustains public legitimacy. As of October 2025, no significant legislative reforms have advanced, with oversight sustained through ongoing annual reporting, diversity statistics, and complaints adjudication by the , which handled four outstanding cases at year-end 2024-2025, three persisting over 12 months. This monitoring framework prioritizes constitutional fidelity to merit and over expansive goals.

References

  1. [1]
    Judicial Appointments Commission - GOV.UK
    The JAC is an independent commission that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
  2. [2]
    About us - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.
  3. [3]
    History of the Judicial Appointments Commission
    The creation of the JAC was an important move towards greater separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
  4. [4]
    About us - Judicial Appointments Commission - GOV.UK
    The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent commission that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  5. [5]
    - Judicial Appointments Commission
    The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.Vacancies · Your account · Prepare before you apply · About us
  6. [6]
    Equal merit - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    ... Judicial Appointments Commission · Vacancies · Current vacancies · Judging Your ... Detailed guidance on JAC's approach to diversity and equal merit. This ...
  7. [7]
    Graham Gee and Kate Malleson: Judicial Appointments, Diversity ...
    May 6, 2014 · ... Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) must select candidates for judicial office 'solely on merit'. Schedule 13 of the 2013 Act clarified ...
  8. [8]
    Judicial Appointments Commission questioned on judicial diversity
    Jun 28, 2021 · Judicial Appointments Commission questioned on judicial diversity ... It will examine the impact of measures implemented by the Judicial ...
  9. [9]
    Statistics about judicial appointments
    The official statistics publications present statistics on applications, shortlisting and recommendations for the appointment of judges in selection exercises.
  10. [10]
    Commissioners - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    Chairman. Helen Pitcher OBE. Vice Chairman and Senior Judicial Commissioner. The Right Honourable Lord Justice Warby. Judicial Commissioners.
  11. [11]
    Background - Constitutional Reform Act 2005 - Explanatory Notes
    The selection and appointment of judges in England and Wales has been primarily the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. In carrying out this function, he is ...
  12. [12]
    Role of the Lord Chancellor - House of Commons Library
    Mar 26, 2015 · Prior to the reforms, the Lord Chancellor had a hybrid role: he acted as a senior judge (and was head of the judiciary); he was responsible for ...
  13. [13]
    The pre-reform office of Lord Chancellor - Parliament UK
    He or she has a role in judicial appointments and disciplinary proceedings, including having a veto over senior appointments and acting as co-signatory ...
  14. [14]
    Rethinking the Lord Chancellor's role in judicial appointments
    Jul 6, 2017 · The pre-2005 appointments regime conferred excessive discretion on the Lord Chancellor, but the post-2005 regime has gone much too far in ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] The Separation of Powers - UK Parliament
    Aug 15, 2025 · In early accounts, such as Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, the separation of powers is intended to guard against tyranny and preserve ...
  16. [16]
    UK | Judges to face scrutiny - BBC News
    Dec 14, 1998 · The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, promises judges will face greater public scrutiny after a shake-up of the legal system.
  17. [17]
    The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 led to greater judicial ...
    Apr 27, 2022 · The LCJ makes decisions which previously were made by the Lord Chancellor, namely appointing to the lower levels of the judiciary, strongly ...
  18. [18]
    The debate over judicial appointments in the United Kingdom
    This article will analyze the debate over judicial appointments in order to shed light on the position of the modern British judiciary.
  19. [19]
    Judicial appointments - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
    Before this appointments were made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, who was a Government Minister. The Lord Chancellor's Department made its own ...
  20. [20]
    Constitutional Reform Act 2005
    ### Summary of Section 61, Constitutional Reform Act 2005
  21. [21]
    Constitutional Reform Act 2005
    ### Summary of Statutory Duty for Selection of Candidates for Judicial Appointment (Section 63, Constitutional Reform Act 2005)
  22. [22]
    Constitutional Reform Act 2005
    ### Summary of Section 64, Constitutional Reform Act 2005: Diversity in Judicial Appointments and Merit
  23. [23]
    Schedule 12 - Constitutional Reform Act 2005 - Legislation.gov.uk
    3B(1)The Lord Chancellor may, by regulations made with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, make provision about the composition of the Commission.U.K..Missing: JAC | Show results with:JAC
  24. [24]
    The Commission
    6 must be judicial members (including 2 tribunal judges) · 2 must be professional members (each of which must hold a qualification listed below but must not hold ...
  25. [25]
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2191/regulation/4/made
  26. [26]
    Appointment of Commissioners - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    Twelve commissioners are appointed through open competition, and three are selected by the Judges’ Council or Tribunal Judges’ Council. They are not ...
  27. [27]
    Three Commissioners appointed to the Judicial ... - GOV.UK
    May 8, 2024 · Three Commissioners appointed to the Judicial Appointments Commission · Her Honour Judge Angela Rafferty KC (Judicial Commissioner) – commencing ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] THE JAC FOR ENGLAND AND WALES: REFLECTING ON ...
    On 3 April 2006 the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) came into operation in. England and Wales, following the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Act ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Annual report and accounts 2023-24
    Jul 12, 2024 · Our role, as an independent statutory body, is to attract a diverse range of candidates for judicial roles, assess them fairly and rigorously ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] JAC Annual Report and Accounts 2024 to 2025
    Jul 15, 2025 · The Commission consists of a lay chair and 14 other commissioners. The Commission includes five lay commissioners, who are drawn from a variety ...
  31. [31]
    Meet the team - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    Jessica Prandle. Deputy Chief Executive, Head of Strategy and Policy. Jessica joined the Judicial Appointments Commission as Head of Diversity and ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Judicial Appointments Commission Framework Document - GOV.UK
    The latest date for review and updating of this document is December 2027. Page 5. Judicial Appointments Commission Framework Document. 4. 2. Objectives.
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Preparing for JAC selection exercises
    One of the ways that the JAC structures its selection process is to use competency frameworks and skills & abilities frameworks (see page 7 to 9 of this guide).
  34. [34]
    The revised Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework (JSAF)
    Jan 27, 2025 · A simplified structure now covers three areas: Legal and Judicial Skills, Communication Skills and Personal Qualities, and Effective Working. A ...
  35. [35]
    Independent Assessments for Candidates
    The competency framework or skills and abilities framework (which is set out in the vacancy information page) gives details of the required standard. Non-legal ...
  36. [36]
    Good Character Guidance 2024 - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    The JAC will consider on its merits each case of a finding of professional negligence or misconduct against you or your partners or other employees if they ...Missing: criteria merit
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Reforming the Lord Chancellor's Role in Senior Judicial Appointments
    The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) significantly reshaped the ways in which judges are selected.
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Definitions and Measurement - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    The Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice or Senior President of Tribunals can reject a recommendation, although do so only on a very exceptional basis. In such ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  39. [39]
    Guidance on the application process
    The process includes application, shortlisting (tests/sifts), independent assessments, and statutory consultation. The process is thorough and detailed.
  40. [40]
    Statutory consultation - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    Statutory consultation is required before JAC recommendations, unless waived. Comments are sought on shortlisted candidates, and must be objective and evidence ...
  41. [41]
    Selection decisions - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    The final decision on which candidates are to be recommended is made by the Selection and Character Committee, which is made up of our Commissioners.<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Graham Gee: The Crime and Courts Bill and the JAC
    Nov 1, 2012 · Since 2006, the JAC has made nearly 3,000 recommendations, with the Lord Chancellor rejecting or requesting reconsideration only 5. (These ...
  43. [43]
    https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/average-timelines-for-different-exercises/
  44. [44]
    House of Lords - Judicial Appointments - Constitution Committee
    If the Lord Chancellor rejects or asks for reconsideration during the second round, the JAC must make a third nomination: again, a candidate previously rejected ...
  45. [45]
    Chapter 4: Reform of the role of Lord Chancellor - Parliament UK
    231 For example, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 replaced the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary in England and Wales with the Lord Chief Justice and ...
  46. [46]
    Changes over time for: Section 3 - Constitutional Reform Act 2005
    (5)The Lord Chancellor and other Ministers of the Crown must not seek to influence particular judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary. (6) ...
  47. [47]
    The Lord Chancellor - UK Parliament
    The Lord Chancellor is a Cabinet minister and currently a Member of the House of Commons. Reforms, including the creation of the Ministry of Justice and the ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] 1 —THE OFFICE OF LORD CHANCELLOR
    2.3 At another level, Lord Chancellors still exercise an important role in appointments, over and above their role in shaping the JAC's strategic objectives.
  49. [49]
    Lord chancellor veto raises questions for judicial standards
    Dec 8, 2011 · Two would-be tribunal members selected by the Judicial Appointments Commission have been rejected by the lord chancellor, the commission's vice- ...
  50. [50]
    House of Lords - Judicial Appointments - Constitution Committee
    The Lord Chancellor should have no power to determine the JAC's membership or to issue directions as to how it should act; this would be damaging both to ...
  51. [51]
    Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman - GOV.UK
    We can look at complaints about how investigating bodies have handled complaints alleging misconduct by judicial office holders.
  52. [52]
    About us - Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman - GOV.UK
    We can help you if you are unhappy with the way your complaint about either a judicial office holder or the judicial appointments process was dealt with.
  53. [53]
    Pre-appointment scrutiny of the Chair of the Judicial Appointments ...
    The Report follows a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing which the Committee held on Tuesday 12 July with Lord Kakkar, the Secretary of State's preferred ...
  54. [54]
    Judicial College - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
    Judicial College. The Lord/Lady Chief Justice is responsible for ... Judicial Appointments Commission · Representative bodies · Sentencing Council (external link) ...
  55. [55]
    Appointment of Justices - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
    The process for selecting Justices of the UKSC is overseen by an independent selection commission. The selection commission is convened by the Lord Chancellor ...
  56. [56]
    Chapter 5: Supreme Court selection commissions - Parliament UK
    UK Supreme Court selection commissions currently consist of five members: the President, the Deputy President and a member from each of the JAC.Missing: oversight | Show results with:oversight
  57. [57]
    Judicial Appointments Commission - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
    The independent Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Judicial Appointments: Balancing Independence, Accountability and ...
    The most significant of those reforms was the creation of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission (the JAC), which sprang into life in 2006. The JAC has ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Evidence on The work of the Judicial Appointments Commission
    Written evidence from the Judicial Appointments Commission. Statutory duties. The JAC has statutory duties under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to ...
  60. [60]
    User guide to diversity of the judiciary statistics - GOV.UK
    Jul 23, 2025 · The Lord Chancellor, Lady Chief Justice or Senior President of Tribunals can reject a recommendation, although do so only on a very exceptional ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Definitions and Measurement - Judicial Appointments Commission
    The Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice or Senior President of. Tribunals can reject a recommendation, although do so only on a very exceptional basis. In such ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] JAC Triennial Review - Judicial Appointments Commission - GOV.UK
    Since its establishment in 2006 under the Constitutional Reform. Act 2005, the JAC has established itself as a universally respected part of the constitutional ...
  63. [63]
    Diversity of the judiciary: Legal professions, new appointments and ...
    Sep 8, 2023 · Table 3.4 shows that as at 1 April 2023, women represented 37% of all court judges, 13 percentage points higher than in 2014, and 52% of all ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] January 2024 - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    Jan 1, 2024 · 18% of new entrants to the judiciary in 2022-23 were from an ethnic minority background, and ethnic minority candidates were recommended for ...
  65. [65]
    Judges and tribunal members - Ethnicity facts and figures - GOV.UK
    Oct 3, 2024 · 12.1% of court judges, 8.6% of tribunal judges and 8.8% of non-legal tribunal members did not give their ethnicity.
  66. [66]
    Short History of Judicial Diversity | Current Legal Problems
    Aug 9, 2023 · This article brings the insights of feminist legal history to bear on arguments for judicial diversity.
  67. [67]
    First combined statistics report – JDF combined narrative
    The proportion of judges who identify as ethnic minorities has also increased in recent years, but remains lower for court appointments compared to tribunals, ...
  68. [68]
    Why Is the Equal Merit Principle (Almost) Straightforwardly Wrong?
    and how much competence matters. Diversity has no epistemic value. My contention is that the Equal Merit. Principle has three possiblejustifications.Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Why Is the Equal Merit Principle (Almost) Straightforwardly ... - AURA
    This article challenges the 'Equal Merit Principle', introduced to the judicial appointment ... 7 'Judicial Appointments Commission ... against epistemic ...
  70. [70]
    Current judicial appointments system is 'not fit for purpose', says report
    Mar 25, 2012 · Since the new appointments system was introduced more than five years ago, selectors have never found two candidates of equal merit. And the ...
  71. [71]
    Judicial diversity and immigration appeals: evidence from the United ...
    Jul 30, 2025 · Using data on over 30,000 immigration appeals in the UK, I find evidence that non-white women are likelier than any other group to rule in ...
  72. [72]
    [PDF] Judicial Diversity: Is Disagreement a Positive Objective in Law?
    Calls for courts to be more representative of society rarely acknowledge the com- plex relationship between judicial diversity and disagreement in multi- ...<|separator|>
  73. [73]
    Judicial appointments system is not fit for purpose | Feature
    Apr 29, 2022 · The JSN stated that the regime was thoroughly unfair, arguably unlawful and institutionally discriminatory.
  74. [74]
    Judicial recruitment process 'opaque and unfair', judge tells Court of ...
    Jul 3, 2025 · A judge's long-running battle with the Judicial Appointments Commission over a controversial recruitment exercise has reached the Court of Appeal.
  75. [75]
    England: Court challenge to 'secret soundings' in judicial ...
    Jul 1, 2025 · The English courts are to hear a challenge to the judicial appointments process on the basis that it still involves “secret soundings” which act as a barrier ...
  76. [76]
    David Stott: Ministerial Influence in Judicial Appointments
    Jan 13, 2021 · In brief, they argued that a senior judiciary JAC should be established with responsibility for appointments to the Supreme Court, the Court of ...
  77. [77]
    JAC not to blame for judge shortages - New Law Journal
    The head of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has hit back at claims that her organisation is to blame for the severe shortage of circuit judges ...
  78. [78]
    Robert Jenrick attacks 'activist' judges in conference speech - BBC
    Oct 7, 2025 · Robert Jenrick has hit out at "activist" judges, as he set out Conservative plans to hand ministers a bigger role in filling judicial ...Missing: right- leaning
  79. [79]
    Robert Jenrick announces plans to abolish Sentencing Council ...
    Oct 7, 2025 · The shadow justice secretary has also pledged to abolish the Judicial Appointments Commission and instead give the power to appoint judges to ...
  80. [80]
    [PDF] JAC Strategy 2024 to 2027 - - Judicial Appointments Commission
    This strategy sets out how we intend to get there. Helen Pitcher OBE, Chair of the. Judicial Appointments Commission. JAC Strategy 2024 to 2027. 3 ...
  81. [81]
    JAC considers extending 'equal merits' appointments
    Jun 24, 2024 · Judicial Appointments Commission currently applies equal merits provision to women and candidates from ethnic minorities.
  82. [82]
    Diversity of the judiciary: Legal professions, new appointments and ...
    Dec 17, 2024 · Where two or more applicants are assessed as being of equal merit, the JAC can select an applicant for the purpose of increasing judicial ...
  83. [83]
    UK's Judicial Appointments Commission to expand 'equal merits ...
    Jun 27, 2024 · UK's Judicial Appointments Commission to expand 'equal merits' approach for greater diversity. It currently prioritizes women and ethnic ...
  84. [84]
    [PDF] Increasing judicial diversity | JUSTICE
    29 Judicial Appointments Commission annual statistics on applications and recommendations for ... 100 The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor ...
  85. [85]
    Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales: Reform
    Apr 23, 2025 · Answered on. 1 May 2025. The independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has a statutory duty under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 ( ...Missing: ongoing | Show results with:ongoing
  86. [86]
    Max Taylor: A Role for Parliament in Independent Judicial ...
    Feb 19, 2025 · The UKSC Model is governed by a combination of primary and secondary legislation. When a vacancy arises or is due to arise on the UKSC, the Lord ...Missing: scrutiny | Show results with:scrutiny
  87. [87]
    [PDF] JACO Annual Report 2024-25 - GOV.UK
    There were 4 cases outstanding at the end of 2024/25, of which 3 have been ongoing for more than 12 months. All of these concerned the actions of the JAC or a ...