header-logo header-logo

Progress stalls on judicial diversity

21 July 2021
Issue: 7942 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Diversity
printer mail-detail
Legal profession leaders are calling for urgent action on judicial diversity after official statistics revealed slow or no progress in some areas

The Judicial Diversity Forum statistics for 2021, published last week, showed just one per cent of the judiciary is Black―a figure that hasn’t shifted since 2014, despite an increasingly diverse pool of applicants.

In that same period, the number of Asian judges has risen from three per cent to five per cent, and for mixed ethnicity judges from one to two per cent.

In 2018-21, Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates accounted for 23% of applicants but only 12% of recommendations―a lower rate than that for White candidates.

Half of all tribunal judges are women, but only 34% of court judges are women (an increase from 24% in 2014), and the number drops to 29% for the High Court and above.

While the first full-time CILEX judge took office last month, non-barristers make up only 32% of court judges and 64% of tribunal judges.

Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, said there was ‘clearly still work to be done’.

Derek Sweeting QC, Chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘We need to understand why, when ethnic minority barrister candidates of Black and Asian backgrounds are disproportionately more likely to apply for judicial appointment, they remain consistently less successful than their white counterparts.

‘Until we understand whether there is problem in the appointment process, or whether the issue is experience―or both―we are operating in the dark. These statistics show that more work needs to be done to improve diversity in the judiciary, not only in relation to gender and ethnicity. More data (and work) is also required on other protected characteristics and socio-economic backgrounds if we are to change.’

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘This report has laid bare the need for urgent steps and we now need to determine as a matter of priority what those steps should be.’

CILEX Chair Professor Chris Bones called for judicial eligibility criteria to be opened up to CILEX Lawyers who last year were able to apply for only four out of 24 judicial selection exercises. 

 

Issue: 7942 / 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