Why should the idea of a transparent, evidence-led application process be seen as an inhibiting factor when going fot silk, asks Karamjit Singh


Recent articles have commented on two aspects of the Queen's Counsel (QC) competition - namely why so few solicitors apply and whether fairness is inherently more expensive.



While the Gazette admits that 'the new system is inherently fair', it contrasts this with the previous process that 'was beset by accusations of old-boy patronage... but it was cheap'. This seems to suggest that fairness should be negotiable.



We continue to change as a society and this is evident in this column's readership. The Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and leaders of the legal professions have all propounded the benefits of diversity and the importance of taking steps to remove disadvantage in entering and proceeding through the legal profession.



More than a decade ago, judicial training was responsive to these societal changes and linked them to the promotion of confidence in the justice system.



The QC selection panel recognises the importance of three principles when considering diversity and equality issues in the context of the silk competition.



The first is that the award of silk marks recognition for excellence in advocacy and there should be no compromise in respect of this.



The second is that diversity is not incompatible with excellence, but rather a relevant dimension to consider when ensuring that the justice process is fairly and properly administered.



The third is that selection processes benefit from a more transparent consideration of these themes because they highlight unfair assumptions and factors that may adversely affect opportunities for certain groups.



Last year was the first year of the new scheme. The selection panel consciously ignored factors such as age, gender, disability, ethnic origin, solicitor or barrister when determining the list of successful applicants, but noted the presence of a higher number of women and older candidates among those appointed than in previous years. For ethnic minorities and solicitors, the numbers appointed were broadly similar.



These changes in the profile (of those appointed QC) can be directly linked to a more rounded assessment process relying on written applications, interviews and references obtained from judges, peers and clients, as well as greater confidence on the part of those applying.



The panel has no special insights into why the overall number of applications is down this year or why fewer solicitors have applied. Last year was the first competition after a gap of three years and a record number of applicants (175) were successful, including four of the 12 solicitors who applied.



The panel recognises from its own experience during the competition last year that there are solicitors who were able to demonstrate excellence in advocacy. It is likely that there are other potential candidates who can also fit into this category.



It has been suggested that the cost of applications and work involved in preparing applications may be deterrent factors. Cost factors evidently did not deter many applicants last year or this.



Of more significance may be the fact that a number of other changes are currently at the forefront of people's minds. There may also have been a pent-up demand factor at work last year.



Given that the award of silk denotes excellence in advocacy, it is surprising that the notion of a robust, evidence-led and transparent assessment process should be perceived as an inhibiting factor.



Resources are always an issue for any process or organisation, but it would be a mistake to ignore that the creation of the perception of fairness is as important as fairness itself. This is clearly evident in the different parts of our justice system, including silk selection.



Karamjit Singh CBE is a member of the Queen's Counsel selection panel