Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates do less well than white candidates in judicial selection exercises, and solicitors do less well than barristers - but the difference in success rates cannot be explained by Oxbridge attendance or professional background, according to 'experimental' data published by the government yesterday.

Looking at data from judicial selection exercises between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2021, statisticians isolated the impact of a particular factor, such as ethnicity, by averaging out the impact of other significant factors, to understand the differences in success rates.

‘This allows an assessment to be made of whether, for example, variations in success rates for black, Asian and minority ethnic, and white candidates, might be explained by other factors – for example, legal profession or having attended an Oxbridge university,’ the report explains.

Oxford

Oxford: Difference in success rates cannot be explained by Oxbridge attendance, according to data

Source: iStock

Candidates' progress through five judicial selection tools - online multiple choice test, online scenario test, paper sift, telephone assessment and selection day - were analysed.

For all candidates in the legal exercises covered by the analysis, the success rate for black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates was 6%. The success rate for white candidates was 14%. For the smaller number of non-legal exercises, there were no differences in outcomes even though the same selection tools are used.

The report states that differences in success rates between black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates and white candidates could not be explained by differences in profession or Oxbridge attendance. Different success rates between solicitors and barristers could not be explained by differences in ethnicity or Oxbridge attendance.

The greatest difference between black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates and white candidates was seen at the paper sift and qualifying test stages. The greatest difference between barrister and solicitor candidates was found at the paper sift and telephone assessment stages.

The Law Society said it was ‘deeply concerned’ by the latest data. Lubna Shuja, vice-president, said: ‘We call on the JAC to investigate urgently the reasons for this differential performance and remove any remaining barriers. We will continue to support our members to make strong judicial applications and pursue their judicial aspirations, but we want to see them have equal chances of being appointed.'

The latest analysis was commissioned in 2018 by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which said yesterday that the report ‘is another of our contributions to support efforts across the legal sector to try and speed up the pace of diversity change’. The commission also published a diversity update detailing the work it has done to ensure selection processes are fair and non-discriminatory, which includes monitoring the ethnic diversity of panels for each selection exercise.

An independent review of the statutory consultation process - prompted by accusations that the commission has failed to do away with so-called 'secret soundings' - will be published early next year.