Major research on the first stage of the Judicial Appointment Commission’s selection process found a significant disparity in success rates between solicitors and barristers.

The commission uses a qualifying test (QT) - which consists of a situational judgement test (SJT) and critical analysis test (CAT) - when applications outnumber vacancies. The commission said a typical deputy district judge selection exercise receives over 2,000 applications for 200 roles.

Concerned by low progression rates within some underrepresented groups, the commission and Judicial Diversity Forum embarked on a two-year qualifying test research project to understand the barriers and identify further actions that can be taken to reduce observed differences in success rates. 

According to a report on the findings, analysis of candidate data from 13,000 test attempts found solicitors and legal executives had significantly lower success rates than barristers. The report says subsequent action taken by the commission includes an ‘enhanced’ SJT question bank and publication of an online QT practice tool.

The report said there was a 'clear improvement' in non-barrister performance in the SJT since the enhanced question bank was introduced, but it was too early to assess the impact of the other actions.

Some former candidates interviewed for the research felt the qualifying test was a ‘guarded process, with a lack of transparency and/or effective communication about what is being tested and how best to prepare’.

The report says: ‘Non-barristers felt the SJT advantaged barristers and perceived that barristers’ day-to-day experiences in courts and tribunals would better equip them to answer the questions. Some candidates expressed the belief that questions were drafted “by barristers for barristers”, leading to a test which advantaged candidates from a barrister background. The survey results, compared with QT outcomes, found some evidence that more time spent in a court or tribunal environment for a candidates’ day job led to a small increase in performance on the SJT.’

Members of the ‘JDF working group’ have since committed to a 'collective JDF work programme'. This includes reviewing language in resources and by event facilitators ‘to normalise the idea of reapplication and emphasise that most candidates do not “fail” the tests, rather they will more often fall below the cut-off line for spaces available in the next stage of the selection process’.

 

This article is now closed for comment.