Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

Keeping the English Legal System under review

Posts Tagged ‘judicial appointments

Transforming the Justice System: the Prisons and Courts Bill 2017

leave a comment »

Enromous changes to the ways in which courts – both criminal and civil – and tribunals operate have already been foreshadowed in a number of policy documents published during 2016. Parts 2 to 4 of the Prisons and Courts Bill contain provisions that will give statutory authority to the changes that have been proposed.

The headline provisions may be set out as follows:

Part 2 creates new procedures in civil, family, tribunal and criminal matters.

It makes changes to court procedures in the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts to make processes and case management more efficient.

It allows some offenders charged with summary-only, non-imprisonable offences to be convicted and given standard penalties using a new online procedure.

It extends the use of live audio and video links, and ‘virtual’ hearings where no parties are present in the court room but attend by telephone or video conferencing facilities.

It makes provision which will apply across the civil, criminal and tribunal jurisdictions to ensure public participation in proceedings which are heard virtually (by the streaming of hearings), including the creation of new criminal offences to guard against abuse, for example by recording such stramed hearings.

It creates a new online procedure rules committee that will be able to create new online procedure rules in relation to the civil, tribunal and family jurisdictions.

It bans cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses  – in particular those who have been the subject of domestic abuse – in certain family cases.

It confers the power to make procedure rules for employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the Tribunal Procedure Committee and extends the membership of the Committee to include an employment law practitioner and judge or non-legal member.

 

Part 3 contains measures relating to the organisation and functions of courts and tribunals.

It extends the role of court and tribunal staff authorised to exercise judicial functions giving the relevant procedure rules committees the power to authorise functions in their respective jurisdictions.

It abolishes local justice areas, enabling magistrates to be appointed on a national basis, not just to a specific local justice area.

It replaces statutory declarations with statements of truth in certain traffic and air quality enforcement proceedings.

It makes reforms to the arrangements for the composition of employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

It enables the High Court to make attachment of earnings orders for the recovery of money due under a judgment debt, as far as practicable, on the same basis as in the County Court.

Part 4 contains measures relating to the judiciary and the Judicial Appointments Commission.

It enables more flexible deployment of judges by enabling them to sit in different jurisdictions.

It brings the arrangements for the remuneration of judges and members of employment tribunals – currently undertaken by the Secretary of State for Employment – under the remit of the Lord Chancellor.

It rationlises the roles of  judges in leadership positions who will support a reformed courts and tribunals system. (This includes provision to abolish the statutory post of Justice Clerk; this role will continue, but those qualified to be Clerks will also be able to undertake analogous work in other court/tribunal contexts.)

It  gives the Judicial Appointments Commission the power to carry out more work (not directly related to judicials appointments) on a cost-recovery basis.

Source, Explanatory Notes to the Prisons and Courts Bill 2017, available at https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0145/en/17145en02.htm

Diversity in the Judiciary

leave a comment »

For a number of years, it has been accepted that there should be greater diversity among the judiciary. The gender and ethnicity of the judiciary should broadly reflect the gender and ethnicity of the population as a whole. There has been considerable effort to more the judiciary away from their ‘white, male, upper middle class’ image.

The present Lord Chief Justice is determined that progress towards a more balanced judiciary should be advanced. The latest Judicial Diversity Statistics, published in July 2016, indicate that some progress has been made.

The headline findings are that in April 2016:

  • The number of woman Court of Appeal Judges remains the same as last year at eight out of 39 (21 per cent).
  • Twenty two out of 106 High Court Judges are women (21 per cent). In April 2015 the number was 21 (20 per cent).
  • In the courts the percentage of female judges has increased from April 2015 to April 2016 from 25% to 28%. In tribunals it remained stable at 45%.
  • The number of female Circuit Judges increased from 146 in April 2015 to 160 in April 2016 (from 23 per cent to 26 per cent)
  • More than half (51 per cent) of the 85 court judges who are under 40 years of age are women (53% last year). In tribunals, 64 per cent of the 56 judges under 40 are women (56% last year)
  • The percentage of judges who identify as Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME)is 5% in courts (6% last year), and in tribunals 9% (stable since 2015). This is higher for judges under 40 – 8% (6% last year) for courts and 14% (15% last year) for tribunals.
  • A third (34%, compared with 36% in 2015) of court judges and two thirds (65%, compared with 67% in 2015) of tribunal judges are from non-barrister backgrounds. Judges in lower courts more likely to come from a non-barrister background.

The conclusions that may be drawn from these findings is that some progress has been made in the appointment of women as judges; but the numbers of BAME judges remain low.

In order to encourage applications, particularly from women and BAME candidates, the Judges Council has established a Judicial Diversity Committee, which undertakes different events and initiatives to encourage a wider range of candidates to apply for judicial appointment. They have recently published their first report.

Their work includes:

  • sponsoring networking events;
  • running a judicial shadowing programme;
  • appointing judicial role models from the existing bench to provide advice and guidance to potential applicants.

One pilot initiative relates to developing ways to encouraging applications for appointment to the High Court bench from those who have not had practice experience as a barrister, including leading academics.

To see the Judicial Diversity Statistics, go to https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/judicial-diversity-statistics-2016-2.pdf.

The report of the Judicial Diversity Committee is at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/judicial-diversity-committee-progress-report-13-16.pdf

Written by lwtmp

September 23, 2016 at 12:33 pm

Determining judicial pay – current concerns

leave a comment »

Each year, the pay of judges is determined – along with other public sector senior appointments – by the Government, following recommendations made by the Senior Salaries Review Board.

They come to their views in the light of evidence received from government and the judiciary themselves.

In January 2016, the Ministry of Justice’s evidence to the Board was published. It provides a great deal of statistical material on the judiciary – both in the courts and in tribunals.

The Government’s position is that overall increases in judicial pay should be limited to the target that has been imposed thoughout the civil service that total pay should increase by no more than 1%.

But the MoJ concedes that there is some evidence that, especially for appointments to the High Court, the recruitment and retention of highly qualified and experienced judicial expertise is proving a bit tricky. The attraction of the knighthood/damehood that all high court judges receive on appointment and a good pension are – it is argued – no longer sufficient. The Ministry of Justice is therefore suggesting that the pay of High Court judges should be enhanced by 3% – to be funded by lower pay increases for other judicial ranks.

The Senior Salaries Review Board has not yet reached its determination for this year.

Looking ahead, the Ministry of Justice contemplates that – in light of all the changes currently taking place in the justice systems – there should be a more fundamental review of judicial pay, taking into account no doubt whether the current numbers of judicial appointments are appropriate.

I will note the outcome of the Board’s Review in due course.

The Ministry of Justice evidence is at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492029/senior-salaries-review-report-2016-2017.pdf with a short summary at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492028/ssrb-evidence-pack-covering-letter.pdf

Written by lwtmp

February 20, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Judicial Diversity statistics 2015

leave a comment »

Getting membership of the judiciary more reflective of the population as a whole is a challenge that the Judicial Appointments Commission has been grappling with for many years. The latest statistics, published at the end of July 2015, suggest that some progress is being made – more with women than with those from the black and ethnic minority communities.

The headline figures from the latest statistical report show:

 

  • Eight out of 38 Court of Appeal judges are women (21 per cent). In April 2014 the number was seven (18 per cent)
  • The number of High Court judges who are women remains at 21 out of 106, (now 108), (19 per cent)
  • The number of female Circuit Judges increased from 131 in April 2014 to 146 in April 2015 (going from 20 per cent to 23 per cent)
  • More than half (53 per cent) of the 60 court judges under 40 years of age are women.
  • In tribunals, 56 per cent of the 89 judges under 40 are women
  • The overall percentage of female judges has increased in both the Courts and Tribunals from April 2014 to April 2015 from 24.5% to 25.2% in the Courts and 43.0% to 43.8% in the Tribunals
  • The percentage of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) judges across Courts and Tribunals is unchanged at 7 per cent
  • 12 per cent of judges across Courts and Tribunals under 50 years of age are from a BME background
  • 36 per cent of Courts judges were not barristers by professional background (down from 37 per cent). In Tribunals the figure is 67 per cent (down less than one per cent).

For further information see https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/diversity/judicial-diversity-statistics-2015/

 

 

Written by lwtmp

July 31, 2015 at 3:05 pm