header-logo header-logo

30 January 2020
Issue: 7872 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Increasing judicial diversity

Progress on judicial diversity has been slow, according to a JUSTICE working party report published this month

The report, ‘Increasing judicial diversity: an update’, builds on its 2017 report of the same name, which explored the structural barriers faced by women, Black and minority ethnic lawyers, solicitors and those from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds, in reaching the bench.

Legal rights group JUSTICE notes some headline achievements―two more women Justices at the Supreme Court, four more solicitors appointed to the High Court, and Sir Rabinder Singh’s appointment to the Court of Appeal. More women have been appointed to the Circuit and High Court bench. However, the low numbers overall mean any progress is fragile and there has been negligible improvement in respect of other underrepresented groups, the report says.

The working party concludes that the current approach to judicial diversity ‘is not working’.

It recommends the introduction of ‘targets with teeth’ so there is proper accountability, and the creation of a permanent ‘senior elections committee’ for senior appointments. It urges that a ‘meaningful internal judicial career path’ be set up so judges can begin their career in the more diverse tribunals or as District Judges. Those in leadership positions should commit to a cultural change in the judiciary, where diversity is seen as fundamental to the quality of judging, it says.

Finally, it calls for the selection process to test for judicial potential not previous advocacy experience, and for efforts to be made to tackle affinity bias so that merit is not used as an unconscious proxy for the characteristics of the current cohort of judges.

JUSTICE director Andrea Coomber said: ‘Our senior judiciary continues to be dominated by white men from the independent Bar.’

Issue: 7872 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll