The Judiciary has been described as "overwhelmingly white, male, and from a narrow social and educational background".

Queen.

The new system of appointment was introduces under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, this new system of appointment is very up to date and is seen as being very similar to the system of appointment for inferior judges. With the new system the vacancies for a superior judge will be advertised and there will also be a series of interviews to help decide upon the candidate best suited to the position. The name of the successful candidate will be given to the Lord Chancellor, whereas in the traditional system the name would be chosen by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is allowed to object the successful candidate, he can also put someone forward for the position which the CJA has already interviewed, once the CJA have made their decision, the Lord Chancellor will pass the name of the successful candidate to the Queen , who will make the formal appointment of the superior judge.

There are many advantages and disadvantages to both the appointment for inferior and superior judges. Some of the advantages with the system used to appoint inferior judges are: the position for an inferior judge is publicised, making everyone aware of the position and not just a select few people. The potential candidate must give three reference, this is an advantage as this gives the interviewing panel a good insight into how fair, just and reliable the candidate is. Another advantage with the appointment of an inferior judge is the possible case study the candidate will have to complete before their interview as this allows the panel of judges to assess the skills the candidate will already have and will give them an idea of how the candidate works.

It is very hard to find a disadvantage with this system of appointment however there is one; the disadvantage with the system for appointment for inferior judges is that the panel (which consists of members all from the Lord Chancellor Department) may know the candidate and could favour them over other candidates.

There are two methods of appointment for a superior judge. The first method; the traditional method, also known as "by invitation" has some advantages and many disadvantages with it. A advantage with this method of appointment is that the candidate must have a particular level of experience and certain qualification to gain a certain status, these are set out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Some of the disadvantages of the traditional system for the appointment of superior judges are: the secretive system the Lord Chancellor used to gain information on candidates, there could be a grudge between judge and another and therefore they are more likely to say bad things about each other. Also with the traditional system there is a problem with socio-economic factors. E.g. there are 37 Appeal Court judges and yet only two of these are women, could this relate to the male domination seen in the past. The second method; the new method, again has some advantages and some disadvantages to it. Some of the advantages are: the new system has a series of interviews, similar to the method of appointment for inferior judges, this is very positive as in the traditional method there is room for a lot of errors to be made with the Lord Chancellors secret research into candidates. Another positive feature is that the vacancy is advertised, whereas with the traditional method is would not be. A disadvantage with this new system of appointment is that the Lord Chancellor is able to object to a candidate, there could be a grudge between them, ect.

The age of a judge when they achieve a high status, e.g. the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in the House of Lords, can also be a disadvantage and also a advantage. Age is a disadvantage because they judicial system can be seen as unfair as the judges in higher courts tend to be quite old and are seen as being unable to relate to the younger convicts. Age is a advantage as the older the judges the more experience they are more likely to have, this can reflect on their performance in the court.

(b) Explain the principle of judicial independence and consider why it is an important part of the constitution of the United Kingdom. (15 marks)

In British law it is seen as being fair and just for judges to be independent and free from any pressure upon them. The separation of powers is considered to be of great importance. The separation of powers states that the three arms of the law should be kept separate, so that they cannot influence in anyway. These three arms are: Parliament (law makers), Government (administrative) and the Judiciary (they apply the law). The has been an idea of the creation of a Supreme Court as in America. The Supreme Court would replace the Court of the House of Lords and would be the most senior court in the UK. This would resolve the problems of the three arms of the state overlapping, again showing the independence of judges from any pressure and influences. There is also the security of tenure, this gives superior judges independence and males it very, very difficult for a superior judge to be dismissed. The Queen is the only person who can dismiss a superior judge, only if she has been requested to do so by both Houses of Parliament, this was established in the Act of Settlement 1701. Judges should also feel free to interpret and apply the law as they see suitable without being bothered what Parliament think of them, and without fear of being sued or sacked.

However, the security of tenure does not apply to inferior judges. Inferior judges can be dismissed by the Constitutional Affair Department for incapacity or misbehaviour. Misbehaviour would be classes as any form of prejudice or discrimination. Judicial independence is also maintained by a high salary, as the judicial offices require judges not to hold any other form of employment. This is paid out of the Consolidation Fund. There is a great need for judicial independence as the decisions made in court have to be seen as being fair and just, so that each person is given the same treatment regardless of their age, sex, race, sexual orientation, ethnic minority, ect.

Again, a judge is unable to be sued for damages for any act that is within his jurisdiction. The case of Sirros V Moore 1975 saw a someone attempting to claim damages for false imprisonment and assault, it was ruled that the actions of the judge were unlawful but were done so in good faith and therefore was immune from any charges. Furthermore, judges should not preside over any case were they may have a personal interest. An example of a case where this happened was in that of General Pinochet, he had a history of human rights abuse. Amnesty International (the human rights organisation) had presented an argument in his case The judge hearing this case was Lord Hoffman,. However, Lord Hoffman had been a non director of Amnesty International and therefore had a personal interest in the case.

Law - REH

Shane Lightfoot - FC3