Debating Judicial Appointments In An Age Of Diversity

What should be the primary goals of a judicial appointments system, and how much weight should be placed on diversity in particular? Why is achieving a diverse judiciary across the UK taking so long? Is it time for positive action? What role should the current judiciary play in the appointment of our future judges? There is broad agreement within the UK and other common law countries that diversity raises important questions for a legal system and its officials, but much less agreement about the full implications of recognising diversity as an important goal of the judicial appointments regime. Opinions differ, for example, on the methods, forms, timing and motivations for judicial diversity. To mark the tenth anniversary of the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) in England and Wales, this collection includes contributions from current and retired judges, civil servants, practitioners, current and former commissioners on the JAC and leading academics from Australia, Canada, South Africa and across the UK. Together they provide timely and authoritative insights into past, current and future debates on the search for diversity in judicial appointments. Topics discussed include the role and responsibility of independent appointment bodies; assessments of the JAC's first ten years; appointments to the UK Supreme Court; the pace of change; definitions of 'merit' and 'diversity'; mandatory retirement ages; the use of ceiling quotas; and the appropriate role of judges and politicians in the appointments process.

What should be the primary goals of a judicial appointments system, and how much weight should be placed on diversity in particular? Why is achieving a diverse judiciary across the UK taking so long? Is it time for positive action? What role should the current judiciary play in the appointment of our future judges? There is broad agreement within the UK and other common law countries that diversity raises important questions for a legal system and its officials, but much less agreement about the full implications of recognising diversity as an important goal of the judicial appointments regime. Opinions differ, for example, on the methods, forms, timing and motivations for judicial diversity. To mark the tenth anniversary of the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) in England and Wales, this collection includes contributions from current and retired judges, civil servants, practitioners, current and former commissioners on the JAC and leading academics from Australia, Canada, South Africa and across the UK. Together they provide timely and authoritative insights into past, current and future debates on the search for diversity in judicial appointments. Topics discussed include the role and responsibility of independent appointment bodies; assessments of the JAC’s first ten years; appointments to the UK Supreme Court; the pace of change; definitions of ‘merit’ and ‘diversity’; mandatory retirement ages; the use of ceiling quotas; and the appropriate role of judges and politicians in the appointments process.

Awarded the 2013 Birks Book Prize by the Society of Legal Scholars, Women, Judging and the Judiciary expertly examines debates about gender representation in the judiciary and the importance of judicial diversity. It offers a fresh look at the role of the (woman) judge and the process of judging and provides a new analysis of the assumptions which underpin and constrain debates about why we might want a more diverse judiciary, and how we might get one. Through a theoretical engagement with the concepts of diversity and difference in adjudication, Women, Judging and the Judiciary contends that prevailing images of the judge are enmeshed in notions of sameness and uniformity: images which are so familiar that their grip on our understandings of the judicial role are routinely overlooked. Failing to confront these instinctive images of the judge and of judging, however, comes at a price. They exclude those who do not fit this mould, setting them up as challengers to the judicial norm. Such has been the fate of the woman judge. But while this goes some way to explaining why, despite repeated efforts, our attempts to secure greater diversity in our judiciary have fallen short, it also points a way forward. For, by getting a clearer sense of what our judges really do and how they do it, we can see that women judges and judicial diversity more broadly do not threaten but rather enrich the judiciary and judicial decision-making. As such, the standard opponent to measures to increase judicial diversity - the necessity of appointment on merit - is in fact its greatest ally: a judiciary is stronger and the justice it dispenses better the greater the diversity of its members, so if we want the best judiciary we can get, we should want one which is fully diverse. Women, Judging and the Judiciary will be of interest to legal academics, lawyers and policy makers working in the fields of judicial diversity, gender and adjudication and, more broadly, to anyone interested in who our judges are and what they do.

Taking a unique and critical approach to the study of Public Law, this book explores the main topics in UK Public Law from a range of underexplored perspectives and amplifies the voices of scholars who are underrepresented in the field. As such, it represents a much-needed complement to traditional textbooks in Public Law. Including insights from a diverse list of contributors, the book: • Enriches students’ understanding of the dynamics that emerge within public law; • Highlights the impact of historical and societal inequities on public law norms; • Demonstrates the ways in which those norms may impact minorities and perpetuate inequalities. With most chapters written by underrepresented or minoritised persons in the field, this text offers students a critical, rich, and insightful approach to public law.

Judicial independence is generally understood as requiring that judges must be insulated from political life. The central claim of this work is that far from standing apart from the political realm, judicial independence is a product of it. It is defined and protected through interactions between judges and politicians. In short, judicial independence is a political achievement. This is the main conclusion of a three-year research project on the major changes introduced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and the consequences for judicial independence and accountability. The authors interviewed over 150 judges, politicians, civil servants and practitioners to understand the day-to-day processes of negotiation and interaction between politicians and judges. They conclude that the greatest threat to judicial independence in future may lie not from politicians actively seeking to undermine the courts, but rather from their increasing disengagement from the justice system and the judiciary.

Revealing analysis of how judges work as individuals and collectively to uphold judicial values in the face of contemporary challenges.

A judge’s role is to make decisions. This book is about how judges undertake this task. It is about forces on the judicial role and their consequences, about empirical research from a variety of academic disciplines that observes and verifies how factors can affect how judges judge. On the one hand, judges decide by interpreting and applying the law, but much more affects judicial decision-making: psychological effects, group dynamics, numerical reasoning, biases, court processes, influences from political and other institutions, and technological advancement. All can have a bearing on judicial outcomes. In How Judges Judge: Empirical Insights into Judicial Decision-Making, Brian M. Barry explores how these factors, beyond the law, affect judges in their role. Case examples, judicial rulings, judges’ own self-reflections on their role and accounts from legal history complement this analysis to contextualise the research, make it more accessible and enrich the reader’s understanding and appreciation of judicial decision-making. Offering research-based insights into how judges make the decisions that can impact daily life and societies around the globe, this book will be of interest to practising and training judges, litigation lawyers and those studying law and related disciplines.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has started to implement what is arguably the most signi cant set of reforms since the Nice Treaty, with notably the doubling of the number of judges at the General Court and the disappearance of the Civil Service Tribunal. Controversies surrounding the process and outcomes of the reforms called for a broader re ection on the European Courts and the way they cope with old and new challenges. To this end, this volume brings together junior and seasoned academics and practitioners to take stock of the various aspects of these reforms and the overall functioning of the EU Judiciary, from comparative, ‘insider’, and ‘outsider’ perspectives. Broadening and deepening our understanding of the reorganisation of the EU Judiciary, the contributors offer incisive analyses of reforms and evolutions, including: – a critical appraisal of the reform process and the role and powers of the CJEU; – implications of the reforms for the Court of Justice and the General Court; – lessons from the practice of the now dismantled Civil Service Tribunal; – a re ection on the future Uni ed Patent Court; – an evaluation of the role of the CJEU’s members and staffs and their selection; – an insider’s perspective into the workings of the repeat players (Legal Services of the European Commission and of the European Parliament) and the parties’ lawyers; – an assessment of the procedural reforms before the Court of Justice and the General Court with a speci c focus on the PPU; – the unfolding and impact of the digital revolution (e-Curia) on the CJEU; – the challenges of the languages regime and legal reasoning before the CJEU. Comparative perspectives elucidate speci c judiciary reforms across Europe, including detailed analyses of developments at the European Court of Human Rights, the French Conseil Constitutionnel, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. As a timely assessment of the effects of recent reforms on the EU Courts’ decision-making practices, roles, and identities, and more broadly on the legitimacy of the EU and its institutions as a whole, this book is unparalleled. It will be of great value to practitioners engaged in EU litigation, scholars of European law and policymakers at EU institutions, and all those interested in judicial process and reform.

As a critical, in-depth analysis of the law-making process, this book has no equal. It deals with all the stages and forms of law-making: - the preparation of legislation; - its passage through Parliament; - statutory interpretation; - the operation of the rules of precedent in judicial decision-making; - the many facets of judicial law-making; - the machinery of law reform. The new eighth edition covers the operation of EU law in the UK after Brexit. It also covers pre-Brexit events such as the unprecedented legislation by backbench MPs to stop a No Deal Exit from the EU and the two great Supreme Court decisions over the triggering of Brexit and the prorogation of Parliament. The books draws on a wide range of sources including important new empirical research such as Lord Sumption's 2019 Reith lectures (Trials of the State – Law and the Decline of Politics) and the work of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister and Justice Minister of New Zealand on The Law Reform Enterprise. There are new sections on the attempt to control the size of the House of Lords, on whether Parliament should have a role in the selection of senior judges and on the topical question whether decisions of the courts on constitutional questions are 'legal' or 'political'.

The Research Handbook on Law and Courts provides a systematic analysis of new work on courts as governing institutions. Authors consider how courts have taken on regulating fundamental categories of inclusion and exclusion, including citizenship rights. Courts’ centrality to governance is addressed in sections on judicial processes, sub-national courts, and political accountability, all analyzed in multiple legal/political systems. Other chapters turn to analyzing the worldwide push for diversity in staffing courts. Finally, the digitization of records changes both court processes and studying courts. Authors included in the Handbook discuss theoretical, empirical and methodological approaches to studying courts as governing institutions. They also identify promising areas of future research.