‘In modern Britain, the fastest way to make enemies is to deliver a public lecture about judicial diversity. Unless you confine yourself to worthy platitudes, you are almost bound to cause offence.’
So said Lord Sumption – scourge of bien-pensant opinion – in a Bar Council address way back in 2012. In 2015, Sumption further scandalised the liberal establishment by asserting that gender diversity on the bench ought to be allowed to evolve naturally, pointing to the ‘appalling consequences’ for justice were men to conclude that the cards are stacked against them.
Sensibly, I am going to heed the celebrated jurist’s advice and refrain from any such ‘lecture’ here. I will only observe that, years later, judicial diversity (or the lack of it) remains a seemingly intractable bone of contention among lawyers. There is a generalised dissatisfaction and the profession appears no closer to consensus on what should be done about it. If anything.
Calls for a comprehensive overhaul of judicial selection are certainly getting louder, though, amid evidence that in some respects diversity on the bench has actually gone into reverse. Writing in this week’s Gazette, former judge Michael Rooze does not hold back. The independence of the Judicial Appointments Commission is a sham; ‘secret soundings’ continue; feedback to unsuccessful candidates is disingenuous and obfuscatory. The chargelist continues.
To some extent, the Law Society agrees. ‘There is virtually no chance of achieving a diverse judiciary that mirrors diverse Britain, because the very recruitment process that claims to deliver that goal has failed,’ Chancery Lane baldly declared last month.
The bar – predictably perhaps – is less strident. ‘The Bar Council supports an independent appointments process that is fair and transparent,’ chair Mark Fenhalls QC told me yesterday. ‘Candidates from an ethnic minority background and solicitors do not currently secure appointment at the same rate as other lawyers. The senior judiciary therefore remains insufficiently diverse.
‘We welcome suggestions to secure further improvements.’
One conceivable route through the impasse could be a career judiciary. Michael Rooze is among those firmly in favour. This does not seem to be on anyone’s agenda, but could Rooze be right?
No comments yet