The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge

[A longer version of this article appeared in Lord Judge's introduction to research conducted for the Judicial Executive Board by Professor Dame Hazel Genn]

All able and successful lawyers, whether barristers or solicitors, men or women, from every ethnic background, should be encouraged to think seriously about a judicial career, and a possible career as a High Court Judge. We do not want them to be put off by outdated perceptions of the life and work that they would be undertaking. Everyone who applies will be fairly assessed in an open and transparent competition by an independent appointments commission, and selected on the basis of merit alone. What is certain is that those who do not apply cannot be appointed.

Two particular concerns were expressed in the research published last year.  These concerns seem to me to be based on misapprehensions about life as a High Court Judge, which may once have been but are no longer true. The first is a general concern about working in an old fashioned, fustian atmosphere, with old fashioned, fustian colleagues.

High Court Judges are, in the main, in their fifties and sixties, with a sprinkling of new judges still in their forties and a very small number of older judges in their early seventies. One of the most striking features of this apparently disparate group of independent minded individuals is the warm collegiate support that they offer to each other. And certainly the cases which they hear are firmly rooted in the real world, whether in crime, family breakdown, banking or commerce.

The concern however develops its fullest expression in the perception that the essential problem is encapsulated in judicial life on Circuit. I am a wholehearted defender of the Circuit system. Those who live and work out of London are entitled to the same judicial quality as those who live and work in London. For example, criminal justice is considerably strengthened by a system where the most serious offences are tried locally but by High Court Judges from London. This process ensures that the senior judiciary are kept in touch with the work of the courts throughout the country. On reflection, it is not particularly unusual for different people to have responsibilities which keep them away from home. Members of the armed forces do so, so do many businessmen and women, many lawyers, and politicians.

What however is not sufficiently understood is that the system for Circuit visits is extremely flexible. Professor Genn herself points out that few of the practitioners interviewed had "reliable information about Circuit requirements or life". Some High Court Judges do not visit a Circuit at all and some go more or less often than others. It is possible for arrangements to be made to accommodate judges whose circumstances mean that they cannot be away from home, while simultaneously maintaining a system in which most Queen's Bench Judges, in particular, will normally spend some time on Circuit. In practice, those who expect to dislike Circuit visits often find, after appointment, that it is far more enjoyable and less disruptive than they had feared. It is a matter of regret to me and my colleagues on the Judicial Executive Board that the perceptions of life on Circuit reflect what happened years ago. The research has highlighted an area where the perceptions have not caught up with the reality.

It is true that there is a heavy preponderance of men among the High Court judiciary but if women are deterred from applying by that fact, it will inevitably remain so. I hope that women lawyers will be encouraged by the fact that in the most recent selection of 22 lawyers to be High Court Judges by the Judicial Appointments Commission, five of the eleven women who applied were successful. That is a much higher success rate than for the male applicants who applied. The figures also illustrate that the underlying problem is that more women candidates need to apply for appointment. I can only share, enthusiastically, in the efforts of the Judicial Appointments Commission to encourage them to do so.

There are similar issues in relation to ethnic minority lawyers. The research did not identify any special factors deterring ethnic minority lawyers: their concerns are the same; the main difference, perhaps, is the low representation of ethnic minority lawyers in the upper reaches of both professions. This is something which they must address.

It is unusual, perhaps, to think of solicitors as an under-represented group, but in terms of the High Court Bench they are. In the most recent High Court competition only one successful candidate came from the solicitors' branch of the profession, and he was already a Circuit Judge. I doubt whether it is fully understood that any solicitors intending to seek a full time judicial appointment should gain part-time sitting experience, and that they should be supported by their professional partners if they do so. The part-time sitting process enables potential candidates to see whether they have the necessary skill and aptitude for the role and whether they are suited for judicial responsibilities. The normal minimum sitting requirement for those in fee-paid office is fifteen days, or three weeks, a year, and we expect applicants for permanent appointment normally to have at least two years' experience. In principle this should not present an insuperable burden, and the requirement is applied flexibly. This is an issue which the solicitors' profession will need to address if they wish, as I do, to see more of their members on the Bench at senior levels.

Learn about the 2010 High Court Judge selection exercise here.