The judiciary faces ‘significant difficulties’ with recruitment, the outgoing Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, has warned in the final annual report of his tenure.
Lord Thomas, who will hand over the baton to Sir Ian Burnett on 1 October, said difficulties existed at senior levels of the judiciary and also possibly among the more junior ranks. However, he said the judiciary was working with the Judicial Appointments Commission to combat this.
One change in the past year has been to remove the requirement for candidates to have a background in a particular jurisdiction such as civil, crime or family—instead they can be selected on their potential to be a judge in a given jurisdiction, with the Judicial College providing training after appointment. Lord Thomas said the success of this change would be assessed over the coming months.
The Judicial Attitude Survey in both 2014 and 2016 highlighted a serious loss of morale across the judiciary amid dissatisfaction over working conditions, volume of work, pay and pensions.
Lord Thomas said the Courts and Tribunals Modernisation Programme was ‘beginning to provide real opportunities to improve basic working conditions’, with expenditure directed towards repairing dilapidated court buildings and updating IT infrastructure. He said he hoped the Senior Salaries Review Body’s Major Review of the judicial salary structure and levels, due to report by June 2018, would address pay and pensions concerns.
On Brexit-related concerns, he reiterated the former President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger’s calls for greater clarity on the role of the European Court of Justice.
‘The senior judiciary, along with others, have emphasised the importance of the Government providing clarity on issues relating to proper law clauses, jurisdiction clauses and the recognition and enforcement of judgments,’ he said.
‘These are issues on which decisions cannot be delayed as clarity is essential for those entering into contracts at the present time. The publication on 22 August 2017 of the paper, Providing a cross-border civil judicial cooperation framework, was welcome, but there remain significant issues to be addressed and clarified.’
