The body responsible for appointing judges has a statutory duty to select candidates based on merit alone, the government has said - after revealing that a judicial office-holder was promoted within six months of receiving a sanction from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
In a written parliamentary question, Labour MP Barry Gardiner asked the lord chancellor how many judges had been elevated from the first-tier tribunal within six months of receiving formal advice of misconduct from the JCIO in the last five years. Courts minister Sarah Sackman replied that one had been promoted.
‘The majority of appointments to judicial office are based on selection by the independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which has a statutory duty to make selections based on merit alone,’ Sackman added.
Read more
Asked by the Gazette about its recruitment policy for candidates who have received a sanction, the JAC said it takes ‘very seriously’ its obligations under section 63(3) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select for appointment only those candidates who are of good character.
The commission’s Good Character Guidance 2024 states that candidates have a continuing duty, throughout the time their application is being considered, to inform the commission of all relevant matters that might affect their suitability for appointment.
Candidates must also declare any matters relating to conduct, either currently or that has occurred in the past which, if the candidate were appointed to a judicial position, ‘might negatively reflect on the standing and reputation of the judiciary at large, or which might cast doubt in the view of the public on your suitability for judicial office’, the guidance states.
