Report comment

Based on my own experience as a serving judge, discussions with my colleagues, judicial leads and members of all branches of the profession, it's patently obvious that the JAC isn't fit for purpose. That isn't to justify the old tap on the shoulder system or deny that there's been some progress in opening up the judiciary to talented unconventional candidates. However, the system is designed to ignore those who can demonstrate the skills in favour of those who can give the "right" answer decided upon by a faceless panel behind the interview panel. There are numerous jaw-dropping examples that any judicial lead could give of JAC daftness.

Look at the recorder exercise that just closed. Why would any decent candidate jump through so many hoops and probable IT disaster to sit for 30 days a year? It's easier to be appointed a salaried tribunal judge. Are recorders presiding over burglary cases really requiring more intellectual powers than an employment judge dealing with a multi-p
handed discrimination case with potential compensation in excess of a million due to public sector pensions?

And why would anyone in their right mind agree to accept a judicial role and then see their pay and pension significantly reduced without their consent and being told they can't return to practice?

Or work in shabby leaking buildings with depressed overworked court staff, computers that aren't functional, parties who can't afford help to prepare their case, and a listing policy designed to encourage a breakdown?