Judicial assessment centres provide a fairer way of selecting judges but still leave ethnic minority and women solicitors feeling short-changed, research commissioned by the government has revealed.

The study into the centres, by London University's Queen Mary College, also showed that solicitors are generally falling behind barristers when it comes to qualifying to become recorders and district judges.


The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) introduced the centres to supplement paper and interview-based selection for deputy district judges in 2003, and for recorders in 2005. The day-long assessments include tasks such as role plays and more varied written exercises.


However, the research found that, although the government had good intentions and the centres are better than a single form of assessment, such as interviews, a number of areas in the organisation and implementation of the centres were a cause for concern from a diversity perspective.


It made several recommendations to improve their approach and also cautioned that the centres alone cannot enhance judicial diversity.


Most women and ethnic minority solicitors who had gone through the centres - but not white male solicitors - thought barristers had a better chance of success than solicitors. The researchers found that fewer solicitors were making it past the shortlist stage than barristers, although women solicitors were proving more successful than men.


A Law Society spokesman said it backed the centres as a fairer approach. 'There will be an increasing pool of black and minority ethnic solicitors who will be eligible to apply for and consider judicial appointments as a career choice,' he said. 'However, many solicitors will want to be certain that this new approach really is a more open and transparent method of selection before they apply.'


A DCA spokesman said: 'The detailed and complex research was broadly positive about centres and found no bias in appointments.'