Page 53 - Judicial Diversity Update report

Circuit Bench

2017-18 65% 66% 62%

2018-19 68% 66% 68%

All legal exercises

2017-18 61% 60% 59%

2018-19 62% 57% 56%

2.75. Whilst overall in legal exercises in 2018-19 almost 70% of appointees had
attended a state school, in the senior courts the trend is opposite; 67% of High
Court appointees and nearly 40% of Circuit appointees in 2018-2019 attended
a fee-paying school. JUSTICE’s own data shows that the proportion of judges
attending fee paying schools increases with the level of seniority of courts.

2.76. In the case of the Circuit bench across both years, around 65-70% of applicants
met the measures for social mobility – state school educated and neither parent
attended university. They were then shortlisted and appointed in similar (albeit
lower) percentages.

2.77. While the numbers were small, the picture is less encouraging for the High
Court. Though around 55% of applicants met the social mobility measures, in
2017-2018, they were shortlisted roughly in proportion, but then appointed at
47% under both measures. In 2018-2019, there was a drop off in shortlisting
of such candidates, and only 22% were appointed under both measures.
Obviously in 2018-2019, only 10 appointments were made in total, but those
who were privately educated, with university educated parents were
significantly more likely to be successful.

2.78. JUSTICE’s own analysis shows that nearly half of appointees to the Circuit
Bench and High Court in 2017-2019 attended a fee-paying school, and 68%
attended a selective school. Moreover, 76% of those appointed studied at

48