Page 88 - Judicial Diversity Update report

speculate that it is always much easier to perceive merit in people who are like
you than it is to discern the merit of those who are a bit different’.
189

5.10. We are pleased that the training that judicial and lay panel members receive
includes unconscious bias training. The JAC should ensure that such training
accords with current best practice methods and that sufficient time in the
training programme is provided for this.

Demonstrating ability
5.11. The JAC approaches to selection have changed over time. Whereas there
used to be a focus on testing candidates’ knowledge of the law, a broader range
190
of competence is now assessed. This is welcome, though we note the WPG
conclusions that the shortlisting format continues to benefit those with certain
191
legal experience and that there is a strong focus on assessing some
192
competencies over others.

5.12. Significantly, the WPG report noted a particular challenge in the design of
selection materials of identifying and selecting individuals who can do the job
in the future, that is candidates who have potential, rather than selecting only
those who have already demonstrated that they can do the job, that is based on
experience.

5.13. The Working Party has been assured that the appointments processes in no
way a gauge for ‘advocacy’ experience. However, we have received
overwhelming anecdotal evidence that advocacy plays a part in selection
exercises. This comes not only from candidates – both solicitors and barristers
– but also from those who have had a role in the evaluation of competency-

have a bias in favor of preserving the status quo; change is uncomfortable. So because 95% of CEOs
are white men, the status quo bias can lead board members to unconsciously prefer to hire more white
men for leadership roles.”
189 Lady Hale ‘disappointed’ at lack of female judge, October 2013, available online at
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24370177
190 Working Psychology Group, ‘Review of JAC Shortlisting Tools – Summary Report &
Conclusions’, July 2018, para 2.11, available online at
https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/about_the_jac/research-shortlisting-
tools-report-2018.pdf.
191 Ibid, para 2.13.1
192 Ibid, para 2.13.2
83