header-logo header-logo

Diversity statistics paint a mixed picture in court

17 July 2019
Issue: 7849 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail
Nearly a third of judges in the courts and 46% of tribunal judges are women, according to the 2019 judicial diversity statistics.

Women also make up 23% of judges in the Court of Appeal and 27% in the High Court as well as more than half the non-legal members of tribunals. The figures, released this week, are correct as at 1 April 2019.

The future looks more evenly matched between the sexes―about half of court judges below the age of 50 years old are women, and women outnumber men among tribunal judges aged 40-49 (54% women) and 50-59 (52% women).

In the most recent year of appointments, 2018–19, 45% of the 143 judges in court appointed to a senior judicial role were women.

One third of court judges come from a non-barrister background, whether solicitor, CILEx or another route. This figure rises to nearly two-thirds for tribunal judges.

BAME (black and minority ethnic) representation among court judges is lower than in the general population as a whole, although more BAME judges are joining the judiciary than leaving it. BAME representation among tribunal judges matches the general population.

As far as magistrates are concerned, more than half are women (56%), 12% are BAME and just over half are 60 years old or above.

Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, in a joint statement with Sir Ernest Ryder, the senior president of tribunals, said they were ‘encouraged to see that the number of women judges (in both the courts and tribunals) and non-legal tribunal members has increased. 

‘The Judicial Diversity Committee, chaired by Lady Justice Hallett, has set out the steps it plans to take over the next 12 months to reach a more diverse pool of lawyers and focus its efforts on attracting new talent and supporting career progression. Amongst other measures, the committee is working to support and encourage solicitors to join the judiciary.’

Lord Burnett and Sir Ernest said under-represented groups will be given support to become judges through the pre-application judicial education programme, which was launched in April by the government, judiciary, Judicial Appointments Commission and professional bodies.

Issue: 7849 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
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