The Judicial Appointments Commission is regarded as a ‘joke’, a ‘national disgrace’ and should be abolished, an unsuccessful solicitor candidate claiming race discrimination has told an employment tribunal.
Ashok Ghosh, who is a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal chair, is suing the commission for direct and indirect race discrimination arising out of a deputy High Court judge recruitment exercise conducted last year. The JAC and Martin Chamberlain, a High Court judge who assessed Ghosh's application, are named as respondents.
Ghosh was cross-examined on his witness statement by Benjamin Cooper KC, for the respondents, yesterday. In his statement, Ghosh accused the commission of lying when the commission advertised that it welcomed applications from groups currently under-represented in the judiciary.
Denying the allegation, Cooper said: ‘It is patently not true the JAC only treats those with substantial experience of advocacy in the higher courts or who know High Court judges well as eligible. It is patently true the JAC does welcome diverse applicants.’
Cooper highlighted efforts by the JAC to encourage applicants from different backgrounds, including targeted outreach work.
Ghosh told the tribunal the commission was regarded as a 'joke' and a ‘national disgrace’, and that was why only 1% of judges were black and Asian people and were disproportionately underrepresented in the judiciary as a whole.
Ghosh criticised the job criteria for the deputy High Court judge post ‘for having the scope for subjective judgement’, the tribunal heard. One of the criteria, ‘supporting change throughout the judiciary’, would disadvantage black and Asian candidates, he told the tribunal.
‘If a person is already a judge, a non-contentious solicitor practising non-contentious work would [find it] difficult to give examples of supporting change throughout the judiciary,’ Ghosh said.
Cooper said the JAC was obliged to select on merit. There would inevitably be an element of judgement in sift exercises but measures were in place to ensure the selection exercise was consistent and objective. Each sift panel consisted of two people, which reduced individual bias, he said.
‘It may or may not,’ Ghosh replied. ‘It depends on the influence one may have over the other. Just because you have two people discussing things does not mean it’s more objective. It depends on the ranking of the two individuals, whether one feels junior to the other.’
Cooper said other measures to reduce the risk of subjectivity bias included a ‘name blind’ sift. Ghosh told the tribunal Chamberlain ‘has admitted he knew the names of at least nine candidates, nine candidates who were shortlisted’. Cooper said names are redacted wherever they appear, but the ‘name blind sift’ is not a process where all possible identifiers and characteristics are redacted.
The hearing continues.
Ashok Ghosh, a partner in banking and finance at Excello Law, is representing himself. Benjamin Cooper KC appears for the respondents.
