There is considerable interest in judicial diversity in contemporary debate about the legal profession but those who argue in favour of diversity often ignore the fact that it will inevitably lead to changes in the way our judges approach the task of judg

Authors Avatar

There is considerable interest in judicial diversity in contemporary debate about the legal profession but those who argue in favour of diversity often ignore the fact that it will inevitably lead to changes in the way our judges approach the task of judging. Discuss.

Judicial diversity, when defined as the presence among a group of individuals of a wide variety of backgrounds, cultures, opinions, styles, perspectives, values and beliefs”, does not change judgements in the court system. A woman is as capable as a man as applying legal principles and interpreting statutes; a member of an ethnic minority as capable as a native British person, a homosexual as capable as a heterosexual. To argue otherwise would be to promote sexist, homophobic or racist beliefs, none of which are compatible with our liberal, democratic values. However, the thorny debate about judicial diversity is not primarily concerned with eliminating discrimination, but with appointing a judge on the basis him/her being a woman, homosexual or member of an ethnic minority etc. To do so will necessarily lead to changes in judgement making that are incompatible with the British ideal of justice.

Advocates of judicial diversity often claim that it is necessary to increase representation of different societal groupings within the judicial sphere in order to increase public confidence. The Legal Services Board states that a diverse workforce is important for “protecting and promoting the interests of consumers”. Nevertheless, the task of the judiciary is to be impartial and unbiased. The idea of having a judiciary that at once represents the interests of different social groups and yet provides equality before the law seems paradoxical. Conversely then, public confidence would wane in a judiciary which aimed to represent different social groups, for fear of partiality to one group and discrimination against another. This in turn undermines the “innocent until proven guilty” principle that underpins English common law. Moreover, the independence of a judiciary “secure from undue influence and autonom[y] in its own field” would be called into question. Under pressure to support ‘their own people’, representative judges would cease to be independent and instead become privy to politics and opinions.

Join now!

In spite of this, Professor John Griffith argued that there is no such thing as an impartial judge; that the concept is an ideal that cannot be realized and that our judicial system is currently partial and biased. Whilst it is true that a judge is made up of their own morals, beliefs, political views etc, a judge need not necessarily be constantly guided by these. Robert Kane argues that the existence of “alternate possibilities” shows that we are autonomous beings. Hence we are always able to choose to act contrary to our inclinations, rather than letting our personal make-up ...

This is a preview of the whole essay