Page 90 - Judicial Diversity Update report

5.17. In 2017 we recommended recruiting for potential rather than for prior
experience, particularly for fee paid appointments. We welcome the
recommendations in the Work Psychology Group’s report, proposing expanded
use of Situation Judgement Testing to this end. We are pleased that the JAC is
taking forward the WPG recommendations

5.18. The WPG report observes that current processes assess knowledge and the
ability of a candidate to meet competencies based on experience. Situational
judgement testing assesses skills and operates to reveal the strengths of
candidates, focusing on motivations, qualities and potential. It recommends
adopting a Situational Judgement Test as an element of the qualifying test to
address this, allowing judgement to be demonstrated through different courses
193
of action, rather than making a final decision about the single best thing to do.

5.19. In its potential to broaden the scope of candidates able to satisfy the
competencies, the Working Party endorses this recommendation with one
caveat. A true situational judgement test involves the presentation of a
hypothetical scenario to the candidate, who is then asked ‘what would you
do...?’. This tests judicial instinct which, arguably, is as likely to be found in a
candidate having no court room experience as it is in an advocate.

5.20. However, currently, the appointments processes also include a second kind
of situational judgment question, which begins with ‘tell us about a time when
you…’. In our view this type of question is much more likely to skew the
decision in favour of the candidate whose background and experience is similar
to that of panel members. While the non-barrister candidate may be able to
come up with an example, it is unlikely to be assessed as being better than the
advocate’s example. These questions are a proxy for experience questions.

5.21. If the JAC and judiciary are committed to recruiting for potential rather than
prior experience it is important that there is training made available for judges
who may not have spent much time in court, for example transactional
solicitors. This will allow them to ‘catch-up’ on procedural and other aspects
194
of judging that they will not have come across in their practice.

193 Ibid, para 2.22
194 As far as solicitors are considered, it is noticeable from the data reviewed by JUSTICE for this
report, and from an examination of the biographies of recently appointed DHCJs, that solicitors who
were successfully appointed are likely to have had previous fee-paid experience. For some roles, it
emerges from the figures that to be appointed, solicitors would have served in more judicial roles than
85