header-logo header-logo

Diversity matters: slow progress among judges

22 July 2022
Issue: 7988 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Diversity
printer mail-detail
White former barristers occupy 95% of senior court judiciary roles (High Court and above), while progress has stalled for ethnic minority candidates and solicitors, the Judicial Diversity Forum has revealed in its statistics report for 2022

The report, Diversity of the judiciary: 2022 statistics, released last week, showed an increase in women, who now account for one third of court judges and half of tribunal judges. However, it also revealed troubling disparities in terms of ethnicity and professional background.

‘Solicitors now make up 45% of applications which demonstrates our members’ interest in judicial careers,’ I Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, said.

‘However, solicitors only make up 27% of recommendations for appointment. Similarly, Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates represent 23% of applicants, but only 11% of recommendations for judicial posts.

‘There has also been a reduction in the proportion of judges from a solicitor background and no change in the proportion of black judges, which remained at 1% since 2014.’

Mark Fenhalls QC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘Until we understand why this is happening―whether there is a problem in the appointment process or whether the issue is experience of applicants, or both―we are going to struggle to address this significant problem.

‘The quality of data is improving, and this provides a welcome opportunity for more effective and targeted interventions by the professions, the JAC [Judicial Appointments Commission], and the judiciary. At the Bar, we are encouraging targets on diversity, through chambers-led diversity programmes and a series of projects to help nurture a more diverse pipeline of successful applicants.’

CILEX Chair Professor Chris Bones said: ‘Opening up all judicial posts to CILEX members would be part of the solution and we look forward to supporting other positive steps to encourage and develop the broadest range of applicants successfully joining the judiciary.’ View the report here.
Issue: 7988 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Diversity
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll