*/
A year ago, the judiciary was becoming more diverse, as the Judicial Diversity Statistics 2019 show, but the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) apparent commitment to genuine progress is at serious risk from COVID-19. Efforts to encourage and support the proper representation of society throughout the legal professions have gained momentum over the last few years and, in 2020, this was one of my goals. I wanted to keep turning the tanker of diversification and inclusion at the Bar for three reasons: to attract to and retain at the Bar the most talented, regardless of background or characteristics, to better serve the community we represent and to ensure a greater pool of diverse, excellent lawyers for the judiciary of the future. That way we improve access to justice, the excellence of the profession and the credibility of our judicial system.
The professions worked to encourage a broader spread of applicants to apply for judicial appointment, supported by the MOJ and Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). This included encouraging those who could not see themselves reflected in the existing judiciary to gain pre-application insight, so that they were better prepared for the process, through the Pre-Application Judicial Education programme (PAJE). The Bar Council supports greater diversity and inclusion from pupillage and the fair allocation of work, through mentoring, to QC and judicial appointment. These programmes continue, despite the current, drastic cutbacks to all our work. In pre-COVID times (by which I mean before the government deliberately limited sitting days to save money), the MOJ relied heavily on part-time judges to keep tribunals and courts running. Once appointed, they were required to be available several weeks per year, providing experience to those who might seek a permanent position. Nonetheless, although tribunal judges are somewhat more diverse, women continue to make up less than a third of court judges and the figures for judges from different ethnic minority groups are woefully low, with black judges making up just 1%. Our members continue to perceive problems in the system of recruitment despite the JAC’s efforts. Recently, the number of applicants for judicial appointment from target groups – women, those from BAME backgrounds and solicitors – has increased significantly, but except for women, this did not lead to more appointments from these backgrounds. So, the group of those applying is becoming more diverse, but something is going wrong later down the line. This problem should be front of mind when considering the impact of judicial diversity initiatives. We have suggested ways to bring about positive change.
Some parts of the professions are on their knees due to years of cuts in the availability and level of publicly funded work, and now COVID-19 comes along. Now is not the time to bring about a volte face on the progress that has been achieved by making working conditions worse for barristers who might become excellent members of the judiciary. Rather than acknowledge that the problem of backlogs is an entirely predictable one due to under-funding, and correct the position by investing appropriately, the MOJ’s plan, insofar as it is discernible, is to make everyone work in court far longer hours, including weekends. How do people build sustainable careers on this basis? How does the MOJ or the judiciary suggest barristers with caring responsibilities continue at the Bar? What do they propose will be suitable adjustments for barristers from those ethnic groups who are more at risk from COVID-19? Because it is inevitably these people who will be the most negatively affected by these extended hours. The government’s COVID-19 response sweeps aside diversity issues on an ‘access to justice’ line for which we have yet to see cogent evidence. This strategy risks years of hard work to change the tide by the legal professional bodies. Our data shows that forcing through diversity-damaging plans will not work: a third of the Bar has been shielding/vulnerable/caring for those who have been shielding or are vulnerable, and a third have primary care of children, so simply will not be available to work extended hours. We have shared this warning with the government from the outset but had no response.
Lack of judicial diversity ultimately affects the credibility of our justice system. The solution needs an unswerving commitment from all: the legal professions, the JAC, the judiciary and the government. Diversity is not an optional extra which can be dispensed with when inconvenient. If progress is to be made, inclusion must be consistently woven into all decision-making in good, but also, in hard times.
The diversity of the pool from which judges are drawn needs to improve – that is why, even in the teeth of a pandemic, the Bar Council supplements our programmes supporting targeted groups to flourish. We are proud that our future leaders programme will be launched soon and that groups like the Black Barristers’ Network are endeavouring to improve the careers of their members. But those closely involved in the processes must also take responsibility for their part: the recruitment process, perceptions of bias and attractiveness of a judicial career, as well as opportunities for promotion once on the Bench. These must all be treated as integral parts of the puzzle to be solved. If access to justice really matters to this government, it should ensure that it does not jettison an inclusive and diverse cohort to become the judiciary of the future.
A year ago, the judiciary was becoming more diverse, as the Judicial Diversity Statistics 2019 show, but the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) apparent commitment to genuine progress is at serious risk from COVID-19. Efforts to encourage and support the proper representation of society throughout the legal professions have gained momentum over the last few years and, in 2020, this was one of my goals. I wanted to keep turning the tanker of diversification and inclusion at the Bar for three reasons: to attract to and retain at the Bar the most talented, regardless of background or characteristics, to better serve the community we represent and to ensure a greater pool of diverse, excellent lawyers for the judiciary of the future. That way we improve access to justice, the excellence of the profession and the credibility of our judicial system.
The professions worked to encourage a broader spread of applicants to apply for judicial appointment, supported by the MOJ and Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). This included encouraging those who could not see themselves reflected in the existing judiciary to gain pre-application insight, so that they were better prepared for the process, through the Pre-Application Judicial Education programme (PAJE). The Bar Council supports greater diversity and inclusion from pupillage and the fair allocation of work, through mentoring, to QC and judicial appointment. These programmes continue, despite the current, drastic cutbacks to all our work. In pre-COVID times (by which I mean before the government deliberately limited sitting days to save money), the MOJ relied heavily on part-time judges to keep tribunals and courts running. Once appointed, they were required to be available several weeks per year, providing experience to those who might seek a permanent position. Nonetheless, although tribunal judges are somewhat more diverse, women continue to make up less than a third of court judges and the figures for judges from different ethnic minority groups are woefully low, with black judges making up just 1%. Our members continue to perceive problems in the system of recruitment despite the JAC’s efforts. Recently, the number of applicants for judicial appointment from target groups – women, those from BAME backgrounds and solicitors – has increased significantly, but except for women, this did not lead to more appointments from these backgrounds. So, the group of those applying is becoming more diverse, but something is going wrong later down the line. This problem should be front of mind when considering the impact of judicial diversity initiatives. We have suggested ways to bring about positive change.
Some parts of the professions are on their knees due to years of cuts in the availability and level of publicly funded work, and now COVID-19 comes along. Now is not the time to bring about a volte face on the progress that has been achieved by making working conditions worse for barristers who might become excellent members of the judiciary. Rather than acknowledge that the problem of backlogs is an entirely predictable one due to under-funding, and correct the position by investing appropriately, the MOJ’s plan, insofar as it is discernible, is to make everyone work in court far longer hours, including weekends. How do people build sustainable careers on this basis? How does the MOJ or the judiciary suggest barristers with caring responsibilities continue at the Bar? What do they propose will be suitable adjustments for barristers from those ethnic groups who are more at risk from COVID-19? Because it is inevitably these people who will be the most negatively affected by these extended hours. The government’s COVID-19 response sweeps aside diversity issues on an ‘access to justice’ line for which we have yet to see cogent evidence. This strategy risks years of hard work to change the tide by the legal professional bodies. Our data shows that forcing through diversity-damaging plans will not work: a third of the Bar has been shielding/vulnerable/caring for those who have been shielding or are vulnerable, and a third have primary care of children, so simply will not be available to work extended hours. We have shared this warning with the government from the outset but had no response.
Lack of judicial diversity ultimately affects the credibility of our justice system. The solution needs an unswerving commitment from all: the legal professions, the JAC, the judiciary and the government. Diversity is not an optional extra which can be dispensed with when inconvenient. If progress is to be made, inclusion must be consistently woven into all decision-making in good, but also, in hard times.
The diversity of the pool from which judges are drawn needs to improve – that is why, even in the teeth of a pandemic, the Bar Council supplements our programmes supporting targeted groups to flourish. We are proud that our future leaders programme will be launched soon and that groups like the Black Barristers’ Network are endeavouring to improve the careers of their members. But those closely involved in the processes must also take responsibility for their part: the recruitment process, perceptions of bias and attractiveness of a judicial career, as well as opportunities for promotion once on the Bench. These must all be treated as integral parts of the puzzle to be solved. If access to justice really matters to this government, it should ensure that it does not jettison an inclusive and diverse cohort to become the judiciary of the future.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen
Let’s hear it for the assessors, says Dame Anne Rafferty of the KC Selection Panel. And to make silk assessors’ lives a little easier when applicants come calling in May, Dame Anne fields some commonly asked questions