header-logo header-logo

26 January 2012 / Adrian Jack
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Opinion , Profession
printer mail-detail

Spoilt for choice?

Encouraging greater judicial diversity is no easy task, says Adrian Jack

The government is consulting on creating greater diversity in the judiciary. Where candidates for judicial appointment are of similar merit, membership of a “protected category” should be a trump card, allowing the candidate with that status to be appointed over the rival.

The idea is a simple one. If a white and a black candidate are of roughly similar merit, the black candidate should be appointed. Likewise, if there were a male and a female candidate, the female should go through.

Immediately though a problem arises. What if a black man is up against a white woman? Does the black man’s ethnicity trump the other candidate’s sex? Or vice versa?

One solution in such a case would be to disregard the protected characteristic of both candidates. However, this would not necessarily increase diversity. Take a woman applying for a tribunal post. In tribunals 38% of judges are women (against 51% in the population at large), whereas the percentage of black, Asian and minority

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll