DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Appointments Process Written Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Appointments Process Written Evidence SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Judicial Appointments Process Written Evidence Contents Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council (ajtc) ...................................................................... 3 Rt Hon Lady Justice Arden DBE ............................................................................................... 5 REASONS WHY JUDICIAL DIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT ........................................................ 6 Anne Arnold, District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) and Recorder ........................................... 10 Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges ........................................................................... 17 The Association of Women Barristers (AWB) ......................................................................... 22 Association of Women Solicitors (AWS) ................................................................................. 28 Professor Lizzie Barmes, Queen Mary University of London .................................................. 30 Mrs Justice Baron DBE, Family Division Liason Judge for the South East............................. 37 Walter Bealby .......................................................................................................................... 37 Equality and Diversity Committee of the Bar Council of England and Wales ......................... 41 Sir John Brigstocke, Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman ................................. 51 Rt Hon Sir Robert Carnwath CVO, Senior President of Tribunals .......................................... 55 Professor Mary L. Clark, American University Washington College of Law ............................ 60 The Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) ......................................................................... 65 Richard Cornes and Charles Banner ...................................................................................... 68 Nicholas Davidson QC ............................................................................................................ 73 Equal Justices Initiative (EJI) ................................................................................................... 77 Equality and Diversity Committee of the Bar Council of England and Wales ......................... 87 Graham Gee, Lecturer in Law, University of Birmingham ....................................................... 97 Baroness Hale of Richmond DBE PC, Justice of the Supreme Court of the UK .................. 102 Josephine Hayes, Barrister ................................................................................................... 105 Professor Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London and Professor Kate Malleson, Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of London ................................................................................................................................... 108 InterLaw Diversity Forum for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (“LGBT”) Networks 112 Sundeep Iyer, Department of Government, Harvard University ............................................ 119 Nick Jones, Traffic Commissioner for the Welsh Traffic Area and Traffic Commissioner for the West Midland Traffic Area ..................................................................................................... 126 Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) ............................................................................ 129 Judicial Executive Board ....................................................................................................... 158 Legal Services Board ............................................................................................................ 164 Legal Services Committee of the Bar Council of England and Wales .................................. 169 Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC .................................................................................................... 184 Lord Mance ............................................................................................................................ 188 Robert Martin, President, Social Entitlement Chamber ......................................................... 193 Professor Aileen McColgan, Karon Monaghan QC and Rabinder Singh QC ....................... 199 Alison McKenna, Principal Judge, First-Tier Tribunal (CHARITY) ........................................ 202 Baroness Neuberger DBE ..................................................................................................... 205 Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission (NIJAC) .............................................. 206 Professor Alan Paterson OBE, Director, Centre for Professional Legal Studies, Strathclyde University Law School ........................................................................................................... 223 Dr Erika Rackley .................................................................................................................... 228 Mark Ryan BA, MA, PGCE, Barrister (non-practising) .......................................................... 234 Sir Konrad Schiemann ........................................................................................................... 235 Karamjit Singh CBE, Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Ombudsman ......................... 237 Society of Asian Lawyers (SAL) ............................................................................................ 240 Senior Immigration Judge Hugo Storey, full-time judge of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) ................................................................................................................. 243 Sehba Haroon Storey, Principal Judge Asylum Support ....................................................... 248 Supporting Higher Court Advocates (SAHCA) ...................................................................... 253 The Chancery Bar Association .............................................................................................. 256 The Council of Appeal Tribunal Judges ................................................................................ 261 Law Society of England and Wales ....................................................................................... 262 Professor Cheryl Thomas, Professor of Judicial Studies, Faculty of Laws, University College London (UCL) ........................................................................................................................ 270 United Kingdom Association of Women Judges (UKAWJ) ................................................... 272 Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council (ajtc) Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council (ajtc) 1. I am writing in response to the recent call for evidence on the judicial appointments process. The AJTC’s interest in appointments issues 2. The AJTC was established by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It has a statutory role to keep the overall administrative justice system under review, and is the successor body to the Council on Tribunals (CoT), established in 1958. In November 2002, the CoT published a Framework of Standards for Tribunals, containing a section relating to judicial appointments (enclosed). In November 2010, the AJTC published its Principles for Administrative Justice, setting out the principles against which it would consider the administrative justice system. Given the wider remit of the AJTC, these are cast in more general terms than the CoT Standards, but the AJTC and its statutory Scottish and Welsh Committees have continued to provide advice to Government from time to time on appointments-related issues, with a particular focus on independence, openness and appropriateness of procedures for the matter involved. Tribunal appointments 3. We wish to emphasise the significance of tribunal appointments. In each of the last three years, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has made more recommendations for tribunal appointments than it has for the courts. We understand that in 2010-11 there were 163 appointment recommendations for courts compared to 510 appointment recommendations for tribunals (in respect of both legal and non- legal members). 4. In view of this, we consider it unhelpful that there is only one member of the JAC with a direct ‘tribunals’ remit. We suggest that consideration be given to adjusting the membership of the Commission, better reflecting the balance of work and allowing the JAC to have greater insight into the practical needs of tribunals and their judges. 5. In addition, we would like to note the inconsistency of arrangements for tribunal appointments. Many, but not all, appointments are made by the JAC. Notable exceptions include the Parking Adjudicators and Traffic Commissioners. We do not necessarily suggest that all appointments to tribunals must be made by the JAC, but we think that there should some mechanism for ensuring that all arrangements meet consistent standards. Non-legal members 6. We would also like to raise the issue of non-legal members of tribunals. Non- legal members help to ensure that tribunals remain a specialised, Administrative Justice & Tribunals Council (ajtc) representative and, where possible, relatively informal forum for delivering justice. Non-legal members in some jurisdictions are appointed by the JAC – 195 non-legal member recommendations were made in 2010-11 and 236 in 2009-10. In other jurisdictions, such as Employment Tribunals, a different
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The State of Legal Services 2020 Evidence Compendium
    Evidence Compendium THE STATE OF LEGAL SERVICES 2020 CONTENTS 1. Framework and data sources 4 Our approach 5 Data sources 6 2. Environmental context and drivers of change 8 Data from LSB’s Covid-19 dashboard 12 3. Access to legal services for all 14 Summary 15 Snapshot of legal needs 16 Unmet need and barriers to access 19 Legal capability 22 Advice seeking 24 Perceived accessibility of the justice system 26 Paying for legal services 30 Public funding and health of the third sector 33 4. Competition working for consumers 40 Summary 41 Shopping around on price and quality 42 Comparison tools 48 Price competition 49 Levels of innovation and technology adoption 53 Unregulated market 58 The State of Legal Services 2020 § Evidence Compendium § 3 5. Regulation that commands public and professional confidence 62 Summary 63 Quality of legal services 64 Seeking redress 70 Professional conduct 75 Perceptions of legal professionals 82 Regulation: awareness and general public confidence 84 Confidence in the legal system 85 Independence of the legal system 88 6. A diverse and inclusive profession 92 Summary 93 Introduction 94 Availability of data 95 Protected characteristics 96 Socio-economic background 108 Mental health and wellbeing 113 Diversity of judiciary 115 7. A successful and sustainable profession 118 Summary 119 Snapshot of sector 120 Alternative business structures and external investment 123 Economic health of sector 125 The impact of Covid-19 127 Legal aid sector 130 Cost of regulation 132 International standing of jurisdiction 136 8. Endnotes 140 1. FRAMEWORK AND DATA SOURCES The State of Legal Services 2020 § Evidence Compendium § 5 Our approach 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for Unrepresented Claimants in Upper Tribunal Immigration And
    THE HON MRJUSTICE BLAKE PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Presidential Guidance Note 2013 No 3: GUIDE FOR UNREPRESENTED CLAIMANTS IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER SEPTEMBER 2013 1 Contents Foreword p.3 1. Introduction: key points to bear in mind p.4-5 2. Applying to the First-tier Tribunal for Permission to Appeal to the p.6-7 Upper Tribunal 3. Re-applying to the Upper Tribunal for Permission to Appeal p.8-9 4. What happens after permission to appeal has been granted p.10-12 5. The appeal hearing p.13-16 6. Sponsor as Representative p.17 7. “McKenzie friend” p.18 8. Application to the Court of Appeal for Permission to Appeal p.19-21 Words and Phrases used in the Upper Tribunal p.22-24 Appendix One- Form IA FT4 p.25-28 Appendix Two- Form IAUT-1 p.29-35 Appendix Three-Form N161 & Form 40.2 p.36-46 Appendix Four-Practical Guidance “McKenzie Friends” p.47-53 Appendix Five-Practice Statements Immigration and Asylum Chambers of p.54-64 the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal Appendix Six- Sample Directions p.65-69 2 Foreword All courts and tribunals throughout the country recognise the rights of the parties to represent themselves in a case that involves them. We are aware that a person may be unfamiliar with the procedures and this Guide is designed to help them. The Guide1 deals solely with the procedures of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal for appeals from the First-tier Tribunal.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellants) V Legal Services Board (Respondent
    Trinity Term [2015] UKSC 41 On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 1276 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) (Appellants) v Legal Services Board (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger, President Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Clarke Lord Reed Lord Toulson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 24 June 2015 Heard on 16 March 2015 Appellants Respondent Tom de la Mare QC Nigel Giffin QC Mark Trafford QC Martin Chamberlain QC Tom Richards Jana Sadler-Forster (Instructed by Baker & (Instructed by Fieldfisher) McKenzie LLP) Intervener (Bar Standards Board) Timothy Dutton QC Tetyana Nesterchuk (Instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP) Page 2 LORD REED AND LORD TOULSON: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agree) 1. The Legal Services Board (“the Board”) was established by the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”). It exercises supervisory functions in relation to approved regulators of persons carrying on legal activities, including the Bar Standards Board (“BSB”), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”) and the ILEX Professional Standards Board (“IPS”). 2. This appeal concerns the lawfulness of the Board’s decision on 26 July 2013 to grant a joint application by the BSB, SRA and IPS for approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (“the scheme”), which provides for the assessment of the performance of criminal advocates in England and Wales by judges. 3. The appellants are barristers practising criminal law. They seek judicial review of the decision on a variety of grounds, all of which were rejected by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal: [2014] EWHC 28 (Admin) and [2014] EWCA Civ 1276 respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to the Legal Profession
    Barriers to the legal profession Rosaline Sullivan July 2010 1 Introduction “Increasingly, children‟s success at school determines their success as adults, determining whether and where they go to college (university), what profession they enter, and how much they are paid” (Buckham and Lee, 2002). The provision of legal services at the highest levels and in the most prestigious firms is dominated by white, male lawyers from the highest socio-economic groups. Our belief is that such an outcome does not occur as a result of overt discrimination but instead barriers to entry and progression occur over the lifetime of individuals seeking a career in law from initial education, to training, to gaining experience within a law firm. This paper explores each stage that an individual follows in pursuing a career in law and the evidence that can help explain the socio-economic characteristics of lawyers we see in England and Wales. Overall purpose of research The Legal Services Board (LSB) has been formed to reform and modernise the regulation of the legal services market place in the interests of consumers. One focus of the LSB‟s first year was on “promoting access to a diverse profession”. In 2010/11 the LSB extends this area of focus to “developing a workforce for a changing market”, enabling us to consider more widely what consumers and procurers of legal services need, want and should be able to expect from the legal workforce. Promoting a legal workforce that is open to the widest pool of talent is recognised across the sector and government as a priority area.
    [Show full text]
  • Reshaping Legal Services
    Reshaping legal services A draft strategy for the sector December 2020 1 Contents The sector and our role in it ........................................................................................ 3 Our approach to the strategy ...................................................................................... 7 Priorities for the sector in 2021-24 ........................................................................... 10 Fairer outcomes…………………………………………………………………………….11 Stronger confidence………………………………………………………………………..16 Better services……………………………………………………………………………...21 2 The sector and our role in it The legal services sector The legal sector is of great public importance. People often need legal services at important or stressful moments in their lives. This might involve a major purchase, buying a home, relationship issues, resolving a dispute, getting injured, being arrested or facing deportation. The legal services sector makes a vital contribution to the UK economy. Consumer spending on legal services makes an important contribution to economic growth, but all industries, charities, local and central government, and other types of users, also rely on legal services. Legal services are integral to our way of life, protecting citizens’ rights and freedoms, and supporting people to challenge decisions made by public bodies. Critically, legal services are central to upholding the rule of law and supporting the effective administration of justice. Our legal system has global influence. English law is used as the basis for resolving disputes in large parts of the world and this jurisdiction remains a dispute resolution centre of choice. Our legal professionals’ expertise is much valued overseas, contributing strongly to exports. Other jurisdictions are taking inspiration from our regulatory model – a permissive regime allowing a range of business models and independent regulation – to liberalise their markets. Legal services are provided by a wide range of professionals and businesses, with solicitors and barristers used the most by consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. the Market for Legal Services in India 15 Regulatory Restrictions on India’S Legal Services Sector 17
    ECONOMIC IMPACT ANAL YSIS A BALANCING ACT Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reforming India’s Legal Services Market May 2016 i A BALANCING ACT: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reforming India’s Legal Services Market (May 2016) Disclaimer: This report is a result of analysis conducted by Nathan Associates. The authors grant to all users a license to copy, use and distribute the results of the report publicly for any reasonable non- commercial purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship and ownership of the rights. ii Contents Summary 1 Introduction 3 1. The Global Market for Legal Services 5 Trends in the Global Market 5 Market Concentration 6 Lessons for India from International Experience 8 2. The Market for Legal Services in India 15 Regulatory Restrictions on India’s Legal Services Sector 17 3. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Reforms 25 Framework of the Study 25 Approach 25 Data Collection 26 Results of Business Survey 28 Results of Legal Service Providers Survey 34 4. Conclusions and Recommendations 41 Relaxing Regulatory Restrictions 42 Introducing Changes in the Governance of the Sector 43 Strengthening Capacity of the Sector 43 Annexure A: Cross-Country Studies 45 The Legal Services Sector in the United Kingdom (UK) 45 The Legal Services Sector in China 52 The Legal Services Sector in Australia 56 The Legal Services Sector in Singapore 60 The Legal Services Sector in Israel 65 The Legal Services Sector in Malaysia 70 The Legal Services Sector in Brazil 75 Annexure B: Stakeholder Survey Analysis 81 Annexure C: Business Enterprise and Law Firm
    [Show full text]
  • Legality of the Use of Force Against Iraq International Law and the War with Iraq
    FEATURE — LEGALITY OF THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE WAR WITH IRAQ International Law and the War with Iraq ALEX J BELLAMY* [The United States-led invasion of Iraq prompted a widespread debate about the legitimacy and legality of the use of force without explicit United Nations authorisation. Some argued that the invasion enjoyed the implied authorisation of the Security Council, suggesting that Resolution 678, a remnant of the first Gulf War, continued to authorise the use of force to ensure Iraqi compliance with the Gulf War cease-fire. The US government further argued that Iraq posed an imminent threat to its neighbours, to the US and to international peace and security. On this basis, the US asserted a right to pre-emptive self-defence. This article evaluates these legal claims in depth. It exploring the background to the war, and asks whether or not the Security Council did implicitly authorise the war. Having assessed the statements of Security Council members, it suggests that the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War were not intended to authorise subsequent uses of force. Nor, it is argued, did Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, provide implicit authorisation for the use of force. Given the substance of the reports of Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and the subsequent failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the self-defence argument is also untenable. Indeed, to accept either of the legal justifications proposed
    [Show full text]
  • Ministry of Justice Letterhead
    The Right Honourable Robert Buckland QC MP Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice Sir Bob Neill MP Chair of the Justice Committee House of Commons MoJ Ref: 86346 SW1A 0AA 17 March 2021 Dear Bob, INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW I am writing to let you and your Committee know that the Independent Review of Administrative Law has now concluded its work and the Panel’s report has been submitted to Ministers. Despite the circumstances under which the Panel worked, with the majority of their discussions having to take place virtually, they have produced an excellent, comprehensive report. I believe it goes much further than previous reviews in the use of empirical evidence and in consideration of some of the wider issues of Judicial Review, such as the evolving approach to justiciability and the arguments for and against codification. The Panel set out a number of recommendations for reform which the Government has considered carefully. I agree with the Panel’s analysis and am minded to take their recommendations forward. However, I feel that the analysis in the report supports consideration of additional policy options to more fully address the issues they identified. Therefore, I will very shortly be launching a consultation on a range of options which I want to explore before any final policy decisions are made. The IRAL call for evidence elicited many helpful submissions on Judicial Review and we are not seeking to repeat that exercise. Rather, we want consultees to focus on the measures in the consultation document. They set out our full range of thinking, which is still at an early stage, and respondents’ contributions to the consultation will help us decide which of the options to take forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Note on the Legal Services Market & ABS Impacts
    Research note The legal services market August 2011 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 Purpose of the Document ........................................................................................ 5 Regulatory Structure ................................................................................................ 6 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 6 Background .............................................................................................................. 8 LSA and the regulators ............................................................................................ 8 Reform of Regulatory Arrangements: Part 5 of the LSA 2007 ............................ 10 Existing regulatory arrangements and outcome focused regulation ................ 11 Legal Disciplinary Practices – a step toward ABS? ............................................ 12 The Australian experience ..................................................................................... 17 European Experience ............................................................................................. 20 The England and Wales legal services markets .................................................. 21 Market trends .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Pupillage Report of the Working Group
    Review of Pupillage Report of the Working Group CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 1 WHAT IS PUPILLAGE? 9 2 THE CURRENT REGIME 15 3 THE PUPILS 26 4 TRAINING ORGANISATIONS 44 5 SUPERVISORS 53 6 RECRUITMENT OF PUPILS 60 7 DURATION AND PLACE OF PUPILLAGE 74 8 FUNDING 81 9 THE THIRD SIX 97 10 STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE 99 11 TRAINING IN THE WORKPLACE 103 12 THE ROLE OF THE INNS, CIRCUITS, ADVOCACY TRAINING 113 COUNCIL AND SPECIALIST BAR ASSOCIATIONS 13 TRAINING OF SUPERVISORS 124 14 COMPLAINTS, GRIEVANCES AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE 133 RULES OF THE PROFESSION 15 MONITORING OF PUPILLAGE BY THE BSB 141 16 FUTURE OF PUPILLAGE 147 17 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 153 ANNEXES 1 LIST OF MEMBERS 163 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 165 3 LIST OF CONSULTEES 166 4 LIST OF EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH 169 5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 173 6 ANNUAL PUPILLAGE SURVEY 175 7 LIST AND ASSEMBLY OF TABLES USED IN THE REPORT 178 2 BAR STANDARDS BOARD REVIEW OF PUPILLAGE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP INTRODUCTION 1. The regulation of the Bar of England and Wales was, until 1966, vested in the Inns of Court. Between 1966 and 1987 it was the shared responsibility of the Inns and the General Council of the Bar (the Bar Council). From 1987 onwards the Bar Council alone, but subject to appropriate consultation with the Inns through the Inns‟ Council (COIC), was the regulator. The Bar Council also exercised representative functions on behalf of the profession. With effect from 1st January 2006 those functions were split. The body responsible for the regulation of the Bar is now the Bar Standards Board (the BSB).
    [Show full text]
  • Bill Written Submission from Douglas J May QC And
    T1 Justice Committee Tribunals (Scotland) Bill Written submission from Douglas J May QC and Allan J Gamble 1. We are salaried judges of the Upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Chamber, sitting in Scotland. Our Chamber is presided over by Mr Justice Charles. There are salaried judges in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as well as ourselves. We hold permanent Crown appointments. In both Scotland and England and Wales there are a number of fee paid judges who hold tenure on five year appointments. The Chamber hears appeals from the following First-tier Chambers namely Social Entitlement, Health Education and Social Care, General Regulatory, Armed Forces Pensions and also from the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in Scotland, which is devolved, but appeals are heard by our Chamber of the Upper Tribunal. In addition we hear appeals from the Traffic Commissioners. We have accepted the invitation for one of us to present oral evidence to the Committee. However, we are presenting this written evidence setting out the principal issues we would wish to bring to the attention of the Committee. 2. We consider that the proposed new system for devolved tribunals in Scotland to be an improvement on the existing arrangements. We are fortified in that view by our own experience of the implementation of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which has brought consistency and coherence to administrative justice on both reserved jurisdictions and those relating exclusively to England and Wales such as the Health Education and Social Care jurisdictions. We do however note that the scope and extent of the devolved jurisdictions to be transferred in is more restrictive than originally contemplated.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BRITISH INSTITUTE of INTERNATIONAL and COMPARATIVE LAW Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP
    THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP Tel: (+44)(0)20 7862 5151 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (+44)(0)20 7862 5152 No. 2 www.biicl.org APRIL 2004 NEWSLETTER Development Appeal: £2 million target reached in donations and pledges Due to the hard work of the Development Appeal Committee, chaired by Lord Goff of Chieveley, the generosity of individuals and trusts and the willingness of companies and firms to become more actively involved in the Institute on an ongoing basis, we are pleased to announce that our initial target of raising £2 million has been achieved. Through the activities of the Appeal we have been able to establish a number of new activities. Last year saw the launch of both the Competition Law Forum and the Data Protection Research and Policy Group, and the establishment of the Company Law Centre. The Dorset Fellow in Public International Law is funded for five years. Our successes have encouraged us that there is strong support for the Institute both within the profession and beyond. It is evident that there is much that the Institute could achieve, given the funds and opportunity to do so. It is to this end that the Institute has established a Development Board to continue to look at ways in which the Institute can increase its activity and develop its role as the leading institute for international and comparative law. The Development Appeal and Development Board aim is to increase the funding of ongoing activities of the Institute.
    [Show full text]