Abstract
Debates about the diversity of the judiciary in the UK have been dominated by gender, race and ethnicity. Sexuality is notable by its absence and is perceived to pose particular challenges. It is usually missing from the list of diversity categories. When present, its appearance is nominal. One effect of this has been a total lack of official data on the sexual composition of the judiciary. Another is the gap in research on the barriers to the goal of a more sexually diverse judiciary. In 2008 the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) for England and Wales undertook research to better understand the challenges limiting progress towards judicial diversity. A central gaol of the project was to investigate barriers to application for judicial appointment across different groups defined by “sex, ethnicity and employment status”. Sexual orientation was again noticeable by its absence. Its absence was yet another missed opportunity to recognise and take seriously this strand of diversity. This study is based on a response to that absence. A stakeholder organisation, InterLaw Diversity Forum for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender networks in the legal services sector, with the JAC’s approval, used their questionnaire and for the first time asked lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lawyers about the perceptions and experiences of barriers to judicial appointment. This paper examines the findings of that unique research and considers them in the light of the initial research on barriers to judicial appointment and subsequent developments.
Highlights
In 2008 the Judicial Appointments Commission for England and Wales (JAC) commissioned a piece of research to examine barriers to application for judicial appointment
Diversity Forum for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Networks (InterLaw Diversity Forum)2, with the support of the Equality and Diversity Committees of the Law Society and the Bar Council, approached the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) with a proposal; to use the JAC Barriers Report questionnaire in a new study to generate data about the ‘missing’ lesbian gay bisexual transgender (LGBT) experiences and perceptions of barriers to application for judicial appointment
This suggests the collection of diversity data, relating to all the key aspects and stages of the judicial appointments decision making process, is vital; for benchmarking purposes to monitor the effectiveness of operations and to map progress towards a more diverse judiciary
Summary
The objective of the InterLaw Diversity Forum Barriers research initiative was to engage in a modest way with that ‘fundamental’ problem by using the JAC Barriers questionnaire to generate new data to fill the data gap produced by limits of the original JAC Barriers study. Details of the survey and how to access it were circulated via email though existing LGBT legal professional networks, including the InterLaw Diversity Forum, the. The majority of respondents (76%) indicated that they were involved in an LGBT legal professional organisation Half of those respondents (50%) indicated involvement in an Marital status, faith and age are other aspects of diversity missing from current judicial diversity data. Over 40% of respondents to the InterLaw diversity Forum survey are under 34 in contrast to 6% in the JAC study. This is a reflection of the fact that the JAC Barriers study targeted legal professionals over seven years qualified, the minimum legal qualification period for judicial appointment. Greater age diversity in the InterLaw sample allowed data on perceptions to barriers to judicial careers to be obtained from a wider age range of respondents
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
