'Not only do the interests of justice require competent judges who are fully abreast of the latest developments in law and practice, but mistakes avoided at first instance prevent time wasted on appeal.' That comment, with its implications for the judiciary, is taken from the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

With so much attention given to the performance of solicitors - and lately of barristers - it is reassuring to find that the judiciary is not immune from scrutiny.Criticism is no longer confined to the press and disgruntled litigants.

Crown Court recorder David Cocks QC said in The Times of 10 August 1993: 'We experience at the Bar dim, incompetent and unfair judges who are being put into cases where they flounder outside their competence.' This censure must be treated seriously, coming as it does from a former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association.

Even more authoritative and disturbing is Lord Farquharson's comment, in the context of competence, that 'there are judges who should not be sitting' (The Times, 10 August 1993).Evidently aware of public disquiet over the performance of some judges, the Royal Commission expressed surprise that 'full-time judges seldom if ever observe trials conducted by their colleagues'.

Although, according to Lord Taylor, there is already an informal system for observing the work of judges, apparently it is not working satisfactorily.

To remedy this, an 'effective formal system of performance appraisal' by the judiciary is now proposed.

To preserve judicial independence, findings would be made known only to the judge being assessed.Taking the idea even further, a scheme allowing barristers - and presumably solicitors - to comment upon the performance of judges is envisaged.

Their views would be passed to the resident or presiding judge and then to the judge concerned.

It may be optimistic to expect that this form of discipline will, as suggested, 'help to improve public confidence in the judiciary'.

An advocate who encounters a domineering, rude or inefficient judge may be reluctant to complain.

Whatever reassurance is given, those who aspire to join the Bench may feel that their chances of promotion would be prejudiced should their identity be revealed.Despite the ancient origins of our common law system, structured training for the judiciary is a recent development.

Traditionally judges were self-taught, acquiring their knowledge and skills from regular contact with the Bench when practising as advocates and also from experience as part-time judges.

The whole process was secretive and contributed to the mystique surrounding the judiciary.With greater demands upon the courts and a vastly increased work load, this laissez-faire attitude towards judicial training could not survive.

In 1963, attention was directed to the problem of inconsistent sentencing by the introduction of formal training to assist sentencers in performing their task.

Short sentencing conferences allowed criminologists and psychia trists to give their specialist views.

On the initiative of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the length and frequency of conferences and seminars were increased.As the need for instruction became more urgent, a working party on judicial studies and information, under the chairmanship of Lord Bridge, was appointed in 1975.

Given the task of reviewing judicial studies, sentencing and training, it published a report in 1978.

It was recommended that a body be entrusted with judicial training, supported by an institute based upon a university and headed by a director of studies.In 1979 the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) was set up by the Lord Chancellor to control the planning and presentation of judicial studies and approve study programmes.

Although intended to complement the JSB, the proposed university institute did not materialise.

At the time, the government was making significant cuts in public expenditure and the scheme was rejected because of the cost.Without the support and facilities of a university base, the JSB decided to operate from London with a relatively small secretariat.

As a consequence, the role of director of studies was diminished and the position renamed 'studies consultant'.

This new title reflects the present function of its holder as an adviser to the board with less influence than originally envisaged.The first report of the JSB, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Webber, covered its activities for the years 1979 to 1982.

It was stressed that the main policy-making board, as distinct from advisory committees, had a mixed membership of 'judges, barristers, solicitors, academics, administrators and others with experience of the work of the criminal courts'.

At that time there were eight judge members and seven members drawn from other disciplines.This policy has apparently changed.

On 17 February 1994 of the 16 members, ten were judges, two were civil servants representing government departments, leaving only four 'outside' members.

This may be explained by the statements in the JSB's 1987 to 1991 report that 'overall direction of the board's work should remain in the hands of the judiciary' and that the board was 'originally created by the judges'.

It was in fact the Lord Chancellor who, after consultation with the home secretary and Lord Chief Justice, appointed the first board and subsequent members.Until September 1985, the JSB had a relatively restricted role, being concerned only with the provision of training for the judges of the Crown Court.

An incredible expansion of the board's work was introduced by Lord Hailsham; overnight it also became responsible for the training of judges in the civil and family jurisdictions, and the supervision of training of magistrates and chairmen and members of tribunals.The JSB still operates in the form originally set up, but with a 'clientele' increased from about 2800 to 52,000.

Expenditure runs at £2 million annually and an administrative staff of 13 is employed.

Courses and seminars are held at the board's premises in London and throughout the country.

For residential courses, conference centres are hired at several locations near London, in the Midlands and East Anglia.

Training consists of residential induction courses, refresher courses and conferences.

A range of publications is produced and a bulletin published.The residential induction courses are provided for those who are to preside in the Crown Court, county court or as stipendiary magistrates.

For example, an assistant recorder's training begins upon appointment and before sitting for the f irst time.

No account is taken of experience whether civil or criminal.

A three-and-a-half day induction course followed by a short period at the side of an experienced tutor judge completes the training.

No formal assessment or report is made on completing the course.Three-and-a-half years later a refresher course is provided; further courses are taken at five yearly intervals.

Annually all assistant recorders, recorders and circuit judges are required to attend one-day seminars.Sentencing conferences are conducted for each circuit.

Apart from sentencing exercises and debates, addresses upon various other topics are included.

These appear to be selected at random and cover such diverse subjects as 'PACE interviews', 'Convicted doctors', 'Where judges go wrong' and 'Criticism of solicitors'.In line with the board's stated aim of publicising its work, television cameras were, for the first time, allowed into a residential training course for assistant recorders.

The resulting programme - Inside the Wig, BBC2, 16 May 1993 - was fascinating.

It showed that those who were preparing to sit in judgment, and their tutors, are beset with the same doubts and quirks of temperament as the population generally.Without clearer guidelines it seems that inconsistencies will remain a problem due to the ingrained attitudes and prejudices of sentencers.

In an exercise based upon an actual case, one lecturer used rather inelegant language - unlikely to be uttered by a judge in court - to describe a particular kind of crime.

This could be construed as an attitude of mind likely to result in bias when sentencing.Literature published by the board for judges and magistrates gives an insight into the rules and conventions under which they operate.

Publications include Specimen Directions, Structured Decisions Cards, a Crown Court Bench Book, and Sentencing Guidelines Cases.

Unfortunately, none of this material is easily accessible to advocates.

Consequently the situation can be compared to a game of cricket in which only the umpire knows the rules.Given the magnitude of its task, the JSB is woefully under-resourced.

Without a university base it cannot establish a training centre with conference facilities, a library with computer aids, or gain continuous and immediate access to academic expertise.

The independent monitoring of judges' performance and reflection of the results in training methods is not possible on a significant scale.

Research and academic and professional interchange with other countries is minimal.Professor Peter Birks, regius professor of civil law at Oxford, believes that our 'great law schools produce almost all the literature of the law and have a law-making and law monitoring role of constitutional importance (The Times, 14 September 1993).

Yet no initiative has come from this quarter to overcome the funding problem for a judicial studies institute.

A creditable example of what is possible is the recently established Institute for the Study of the Legal Profession at Sheffield University which aims to provide a forum for research and study.A deficiency in the present scheme of training is the absence of instruction and a recognised qualification for potential judicial candidates.

Selectors should at least know that candidates have a basic training in the judicial process, including Bench and sentencing exercises.

Most importantly, those without experience in criminal work could be given an introduction into this field before being thrust into unfamiliar territory.The prospect of the board conducting a pre-appointment course or significantly increasing training upon appointment is remote.

It is here that the Law Society has a unique contribution to make.

It has a comprehensive course for advocates to meet the extension of rights of audience to the higher courts (see [1993] Gazette, 17 December, 29).First, a certificate of eligibility must be obtained on the basis of advocacy experience and as an instructing solicitor.

After passing a written test upon the appropriate law and procedure, the candidate can proceed to an advocacy training course lasting six days.

It is evident that solicitor advocates are more highly trained and experienced than novice barristers on completing their pupillage.Following this example it would be logical to establish a high grade judicial studies diploma by assessment and examination.

A grounding in trial conduct, sentencing exercises and familiarity with the Crown Court Bench Book and other JSB publications could form the basis of a qualifying course.This could lead to a more open and defined judicial career path.

If it is thought necessary for solicitor advocates to be formally authorised before practising, how much more important it is for potential judges to have basic training and qualification before - and not after - appointment.

Solicitor advocates who find they have the ability and inclination would show their commitment by first acquiring a judicial studies diploma.

By relying solely upon a confidential report and interview, it is not surprising that under the present system selectors make mistakes.