The old tried and tested system might not have been transparent, but it had delivered many outstanding judges from the cream of a respected profession.

We had to prove ourselves, and I firmly believe we have done, through the rigour of our processes and in the quality of the judges we have selected.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge was kind enough to say this year that in his view the debate over whether there should be a Commission, and whether judges should be selected in open competition on merit is for the past not the future.

I hope he is right, and that this view, expressed at a conference he hosted on the subject of a Judiciary for the 21st Century, shows that the JAC has answered many of the doubters, and that we have moved from being a new organisation, perhaps still on trial, to one which is fully fledged and widely accepted.

In our first three years we have launched 54 selection exercises, handled more than 7,500 applications and made more than 700 recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. Our achievement, though, is not just about numbers, it is about quality and equality. We have developed fair processes which work. We ensure that our selection processes are robust and free of bias by undertaking rigorous checks at key stages in each selection exercise.

We have two key statutory duties - to select solely on merit and “to have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range or persons available for selection for appointments”. All that we do combines the two. A wider pool of strong candidates from all backgrounds can only lead to healthier competition and the candidates who succeed will need to be even better.

However, no system leaves every candidate happy. It is in the nature of our task that the majority of people who apply for the job will be left dissatisfied with the result, because there are many candidates for each post.

We take great care at every step in the process to make sure our choices are the right ones and that every candidate is treated fairly. And when final decisions are being made on candidates to recommend to the Lord Chancellor, the Commissioners take every step to ensure that we have all the relevant material available before we reach our decision.

I think some of the criticisms in the early days were blaming the JAC for factors outside our control.

For example, we are sometimes asked to make selections under section 94 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, where we are asked by the Lord Chancellor to produce a list of suitable candidates to be drawn from in future as vacancies arise, with no guarantee of a job for them.

This was unsatisfactory as it left those on the list with no certainty about whether they would be appointed or not. I We are pleased we were able to secure agreement for the Circuit Bench and High Court selection exercises last year to be run under section 87 of the Act, so that every one who was successful knew they would over the coming months be appointed.

Even with posts under section 87, the time it takes from application to appointment is only partly down to the selection process, and the length of time from our recommendation to the Lord Chancellor to the appointment being made lies outside the JAC’s control. We are working with the Judicial Office and the Ministry of Justice to try to reduce these timelines.

Some of the changes we have introduced have not pleased everybody.

I know, for example, that some people have questioned the reliability of the written test which we now normally use up to and including Circuit Judge level as a shortlisting method.

We moved to shortlisting most exercises by test rather than by self- assessment and references for good reasons. Qualifying tests provide more objective evidence of candidates’ abilities, irrespective of their specialism within the legal profession.

The written test requires candidates to analyse case studies, identify issues and apply the law, which for some exercises may be a hypothetical statute. It principally tests intellectual capacity, but also provides evidence of a candidate’s ability in other areas of competency. They are designed to be stretching because being a judge is stretching.

The tests are carefully prepared. They are generally set by and marked by serving judges and subject to rigorous quality assurance.

Another factor outside are control is that while we select the best, we can only select from the pool of those who actually apply.

We commissioned independent research from the British Market Research Bureau, in partnership with the Bar Council and Law Society, to find out what attracts people to or deters them from applying to be a judge.
A detailed questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 6,000 solicitors and barristers, of whom 2000 responded, and we published the full findings this summer.

The research shows that solicitors are much less likely than barristers to see becoming a judge as part of their future career.

The isolated nature of the role of a judge, the loss of flexibility, the reduction in
earnings and the judicial culture are identified as unappealing factors by some.

Many lawyers said they would be more likely to apply for salaried judicial office if they could work part-time.

The data also shows that some myths still persist which need to be dispelled. For example, one third of those who responded believe that they cannot apply unless they know a High Court judge who will act as a referee.

It is still widely believed that to become a judge one needs to be a barrister, have the right kind of education, be part of the right social network and know the top judges.

It is also believed that being under 40 or working class is a disadvantage. Many still do not see the appointments process as based solely on merit. For
example, women think men have an advantage and men think women are
favoured.

The results confirm and add detail to our approach to informing and encouraging good candidates from all backgrounds. Our approach to outreach is now sharply focussed. We make every effort within available resources to reach out to all under-represented groups in order to raise awareness of the opportunities available and offer practical advice on our selection processes.

But what has also become increasingly clear is that because there are factors outside our control, we need to work in partnership with the bodies who can change those too. We organised a seminar in July for the various organisations concerned with judicial diversity, where it was agreed we would work together to break down barriers to application and encourage strong candidates from all backgrounds to apply.

We will help coordinate the various efforts and initiatives. The Bar Council is extending its mentoring scheme to focus more on candidates from a wider range of groups.

Work shadowing a serving judge has been increasingly recognised as an important way for candidates to get an insight into life on the Bench to find out if it is the job for them. Accordingly the Judicial Work Shadowing Scheme was extended earlier this year, and more and more lawyers are taking part.
We are filming an example of the role-play part of the selection process, and this has been jointly funded by the Law Society and has the support of the Black Solicitors Network.
The Law Society has agreed to set up a mentoring scheme to support solicitors interested in judicial office.
Our experience to date, and the research findings, show that some of the barriers that restrict progress on diversity include minimum entry requirements, such as the Lord Chancellor’s expectation that candidates will “normally” have gained fee paid experience as a judge before taking a salaried post. We are urging the Lord Chancellor to consider removing or reducing requirements.
However, no one should conclude from the research findings, or from all our efforts to encourage able candidates from a variety of backgrounds, that there is a shortage of good candidates. There is not. On the contrary, the process is becoming more competitive.

We have dealt with more than 3,500 applications this year, an increase of almost 40 per cent on the year before.

For example, there were almost 1,000 applications for 128 Recorder posts on the South Eastern Circuit, and over 800 applications for 26 Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) posts.

Knowing how popular the South Eastern Recorder exercise was likely to be, we held a joint seminar with the Bar Council just before Christmas to advise candidates. It was so oversubscribed that a second breakfast seminar was arranged at short notice. A similar event with the Law Society was moved to a bigger venue to accommodate the demand.

I would like to stress that there are jobs in the Tribunals as well as the Courts, and either is a way of gaining valuable experience: so consider applying across the range of posts.

Both Tribunals and Courts offer a fulfilling career path in their own right, but even if you want eventually to progress on a different track, the skills and experience from one are clearly transferable to the other.

So our advice to barristers and others from all backgrounds with aspirations to become a judge is to prepare yourself as well as you can, and apply for the right post at the right time. We have recently published our programme of forthcoming selection exercises on our website, which should help you to plan your application.

Our challenge, using the findings of our research to provide a sound basis, is to work with the profession, the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, as well as those who support under-represented groups, to make sure we put the right supports in place, and turn the increasing numbers of strong applications from a wider pool into an ever higher standard of judges.

By Baroness Prashar