Skip to main content

Judges: Public Appointments

Volume 467: debated on Monday 19 November 2007

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what process was followed in the appointment of (a) Crown, (b) county, (c) high and (d) Appeal Court judges over the last five years; whether consideration is given to a candidate’s stated political views; how many candidates were rejected; and if he will make a statement. (165721)

Since April 2006, the independent Judicial Appointments Commission has had the responsibility for appointments and has set out the qualities and abilities it believes are necessary for judicial office. These are: intellectual capacity, personal qualities, the ability to understand and treat fairly, authority and communication skills and efficiency. The Commission determines its own selection processes.

Prior to the transfer of responsibility, the process for selection for appointments varied for different appointments and evolved over time. However, immediately prior to the creation of the Commission, the following general steps formed the outline for all selection exercises for appointments below the High Court: application, consultation, sift and interviews and/or assessment centres. For the final High Court exercise before 2006 the process was the same except that candidates were not interviewed but considered on the papers by the selection panel. For all exercises, applicants were assessed against published criteria for the appointment in question. In addition to the minimum criteria set out in law for appointment to each level of post, applicants have to demonstrate that they have the qualities and abilities needed to successfully take on judicial office, including relevant knowledge and experience, independence, professionalism, judgment and people skills. Information about candidates’ political views is neither sought nor taken into account in the selection process.

The following tables set out the numbers of applicants for (save for the Court of Appeal), and appointments to, salaried judicial posts (not including magistrates) in the Courts system for the five-year period 2002-03 to 2006-07, plus appointments to the fee-paid position of Recorder. It is not possible to identify separately appointments to the Crown court and county court as judges on the Circuit Bench and Recorders are deployed to either. District Judges only sit in the county court.

Court of Appeal

Appointed

2006-07

4

2005-06

4

2004-05

1

2003-04

6

2002-03

2

High Court

Applicants

Appointed

2006-07

8

2005-06

129

8

2004-05

128

11

2003-04

174

10

2002-03

57

6

Senior Circuit Judge

Applicants

Appointed

Rejected

2006-07

1

3

2005-06

41

5

36

2004-05

39

6

33

2003-04

41

7

34

2002-03

30

4

26

1 Appointments made from a combination of pre-JAC exercises and the upgrading of a Circuit Judge post to Senior Circuit Judge.

Circuit Bench

Applicants

Appointed

Reserve

Rejected

2006-07

1

2005-06

248

42

64

142

2004-05

112

6

28

78

2003-04

207

30

65

112

2002-03

2

1 No general competition was completed in 2006-07. However, nine vacancies arose in this period, nine posts were filled by candidates who were on the circuit bench reserve list established after the 2005-06 competition.

2 No general competition was held in 2002-03. However, 39 vacancies arose in this period, 38 posts were filled by candidates who were on the circuit bench reserve list established after the 2001-02 competition.

District Bench

Applicants

Appointed

Reserve

Rejected

2006-07

1

2005-06

24

13

2

9

2004-05

248

26

27

195

2003-04

29

3

2

24

2002-03

241

15

22

204

1 No general competition was completed in 2006-07. However, 12 vacancies arose in this period, 12 posts were filled by candidates who were on the district bench reserve list established after the 2005-06 competition.

Recorder

Applicants

Appointed

Reserve

Rejected

2006-07

350

45

305

2005-06

782

162

192

428

2004-05

683

143

540

2003-04

267

20

26

221

2002-03

589

93

83

413