*/
The moral courage to make unpopular decisions is a necessary attribute of a judge, according to Lord Clarke.
In a paper on judicial appointments, “Selecting Judges: Merit, Moral Courage, Judgment and Diversity”, Lord Clarke of Stone-Cum-Ebony, formerly the Master of the Rolls and now a Justice of the Supreme Court, said four “essential” principles underpin any judicial selection and appointment process—openness, merit, good character and diversity.
Moral courage is as important as honesty in defining good character. He said: “Individuals who are likely to be swayed by public opinion, who might not make the right, the just, decision because it is an unpopular decision or because it is adverse to their interests cannot properly be seen as having good character.”
On diversity, he said judges must be properly representative of the state and not drawn from a single group within society. Therefore, more solicitors and those who do not practise advocacy should be encouraged to apply. Merit is a “mutable” criterion, but requires legal ability and practical judgment. Managerial skills are also required, as judges must actively case manage claims, as well as manage themselves and court staff.
“A judge must not only be seen and understood to be competent and able to exercise the moral courage needed to adjudicate fairly and justly, which comes through the merit criterion, they must also be trusted as individuals who will do so. Good character is essential to building this trust and confidence. It is difficult to conceive of a judiciary that could be trusted by the public to deal with cases justly, to do justice, if its members were not of unimpeachable character.”
An appointments process that is committed to openness is necessary in an open, democratic society, he said, particularly since the Human Rights Act 1998 and the greater use of judicial review applications means judges are “increasingly adjudicating as to rights between individuals and the state”.
He said that it was “absolutely essential” that active steps were taken to encourage all those who are eligible for appointment to apply. “It is no longer sufficient to carry on as before. Barristers, solicitors, legal executives, academics must be encouraged to apply where they meet the statutory qualification.”
On diversity, he said judges must be properly representative of the state and not drawn from a single group within society. Therefore, more solicitors and those who do not practise advocacy should be encouraged to apply. Merit is a “mutable” criterion, but requires legal ability and practical judgment. Managerial skills are also required, as judges must actively case manage claims, as well as manage themselves and court staff.
“A judge must not only be seen and understood to be competent and able to exercise the moral courage needed to adjudicate fairly and justly, which comes through the merit criterion, they must also be trusted as individuals who will do so. Good character is essential to building this trust and confidence. It is difficult to conceive of a judiciary that could be trusted by the public to deal with cases justly, to do justice, if its members were not of unimpeachable character.”
An appointments process that is committed to openness is necessary in an open, democratic society, he said, particularly since the Human Rights Act 1998 and the greater use of judicial review applications means judges are “increasingly adjudicating as to rights between individuals and the state”.
He said that it was “absolutely essential” that active steps were taken to encourage all those who are eligible for appointment to apply. “It is no longer sufficient to carry on as before. Barristers, solicitors, legal executives, academics must be encouraged to apply where they meet the statutory qualification.”
The moral courage to make unpopular decisions is a necessary attribute of a judge, according to Lord Clarke.
In a paper on judicial appointments, “Selecting Judges: Merit, Moral Courage, Judgment and Diversity”, Lord Clarke of Stone-Cum-Ebony, formerly the Master of the Rolls and now a Justice of the Supreme Court, said four “essential” principles underpin any judicial selection and appointment process—openness, merit, good character and diversity.
Moral courage is as important as honesty in defining good character. He said: “Individuals who are likely to be swayed by public opinion, who might not make the right, the just, decision because it is an unpopular decision or because it is adverse to their interests cannot properly be seen as having good character.”
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
