Quality | 2010.02.28
Why the judges' bench is still a white male zone
The judiciary remains short of women and ethnic minority members but prejudice is not to blame – the problem is in finding enough good candidates
\'The present imbalance between male and female, white and black, in the judiciary is obvious … I have no doubt that the balance will be redressed in the next few years," said the lord chief justice, the late Lord Taylor, in 1992. A couple of years later the lord chancellor, Lord Mackay, explained the "trickle up" theory in vogue at the time. As more and more women became lawyers, more would rise through the ranks and become part of the pool from which judges are chosen. The steep rise in the numbers of women entering the legal profession over the past two decades – we are close to gender parity – would inevitably be reflected in the fast-growing proportion of women judges.
It hasn\'t happened. Successive Labour lord chancellors Derry Irvine and Charlie Falconer bemoaned the slow progress and set up worthy initiatives, the most important of which was the judicial appointments commission, with its properly structured, transparent process.
It still hasn\'t happened. The entry of women and ethnic minorities into the judiciary (especially its higher echelons) continues to be painfully slow. Last week yet another report , commissioned by the government, listed the problems and made recommendations. Lady Neuberger\'s committee has produced a thorough, intelligent analysis, the best yet on the issue. Yet after reading it, and agreeing with almost everything it said, I felt depressed.
The Neuberger Report stresses that appointments must be made only on merit. There can be no quotas or affirmative action which results in a member of a disadvantaged group getting a job ahead of a better qualified white male. There is one concession. Where two candidates were of equal ability preference could be given for reasons of diversity. That would be a positive move, but not central to the main issue.
In the past, it was easy to blame the continued dominance of the white male on prejudice. The lord chancellor, who picked judges, was part of the same gang. So were those he mainly consulted – senior judges. That\'s all gone now and Neuberger realises that today\'s barriers to diversity are far more nebulous, varied and difficult to overcome. It\'s no longer a matter of blaming the way judges are chosen. The difficulty now is in finding enough good candidates (other than white male barristers) who wish to be chosen.
Eligible, able women have not rushed forward. Reasons include the job\'s incompatibility with family life. Solicitors, too, have been a disappointing source. The first solicitor to become a high court judge, Michael Sachs, was appointed in 1993, since then only three others have followed, only one of whom has climbed higher (supreme court justice Collins).
But the most important category of potential judges identified is those women and minority members who don\'t even think of applying because they\'re sure they have no chance or don\'t think of themselves as judge material, or are ignorant of the possibilities that exist, or lack the confidence to realise their own talents. The report makes a series of proposals aimed at winkling out and encouraging the reticent and the unknown. But where will the money, the effort and the will come from?
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]ny-white-judges-marcel-berlins
