Oxbridge ‘doesn’t explain’ judicial appointment struggle | News

Black, Asian, and ethnic minority candidates do less well in judicial competitions than white candidates, and attorneys do less well than attorneys – but the difference in success rates cannot be explained by Oxbridge presence or professional background, according to “experimental” Data received from. the government released yesterday.

Using data from judicial competitions between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2021, statisticians isolated the effects of one factor, such as ethnicity, by averaging the effects of other important factors to determine differences in success rates to understand.

“This allows an assessment to be made of whether, for example, the different success rates of black, Asian, ethnic minority and white candidates could be explained by other factors – such as a legal profession or attending a university in Oxbridge.” explains the report.

Candidates’ progress on five judicial selection tools – online multiple choice test, online scenario test, paper screening, telephone assessment and selection day – were analyzed.

For all candidates in the legal exercises covered by the analysis, the success rate for black, Asian, and ethnic minorities was 6%. The success rate of the white candidates was 14%. There were no differences in the results for the smaller number of non-legal exercises, although the same selection tools were used.

The report finds that differences in success rates between black, Asian, and ethnic minority candidates and white candidates could not be explained by differences in occupation or the presence of Oxbridge. Differences in success rates between attorneys and attorneys could not be explained by differences in ethnicity or presence in Oxbridge.

The biggest difference between black, Asian, and ethnic minority candidates and white candidates was found in the paper screening and qualification test. The biggest difference between the attorney and attorney candidates was found in the paper screening and telephone assessment stages.

The Law Society said it was “deeply concerned” with the latest data. Lubna Shuja, Vice President, said: “We urge the JAC to urgently investigate the reasons for this disparity in performance and remove any remaining obstacles. We will continue to support our members in filing strong legal motions and pursuing their legal efforts, but we want them to have an equal chance of appointment. ‘

The latest analysis was commissioned in 2018 by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which said yesterday that the report “is another of our contributions to support efforts across the legal sector to accelerate diversity change”. The commission also released a diversity update detailing its work to ensure that selection processes are fair and non-discriminatory, including monitoring the ethnic diversity of the panels for each selection exercise.

A independent review of the statutory consultation procedure – initiated by accusations that the commission failed to remove the so-called “secret explorations” – will be published early next year.

Comments are closed.