A simple question: in what aspects of life is it required, beneficial or necessary that those offering, receiving or supplying services be representative of the population as a whole? The corollary is that in what areas of our society is such representation unnecessary, unwanted or unattainable? Apart from the Chinese armed forces the NHS is the largest employer in the world. As of June 2023 81.3% of NHS staff in England are British. 8.6% report an Asian nationality and 5.2% are EU nationals. This varies in different parts of the country. In London 30% of staff report a non-British nationality. Around 265,000 out of 1.5 million staff country wide reported a non-British nationality in June 2023 up from 220,000 a year earlier. This amounts to nearly one in five of NHS staff with a known nationality. An analysis shows more than two fifths (42%) of doctors, dentists and consultants and almost a third (29.2%) of our nurses, midwives and health visitors are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. In March this year one quarter of care workers and home carers was born outside of the UK according to the Office for National Statistics. Such statistics can be obtained for many if not most occupations such is the determination of government and pressure groups to ensure that there is no racial discrimination within the workforce. But the watchword now is "diversity". Indeed several UK universities offer degrees in diversity or on a similar basis e.g. cultural heritage; Manchester, Lincoln and the University of Wales. The "D" word has become an industry. It has also become a totem as sacred to human resources departments as it was and is to native Americans where the term originated.
Nowhere has the supposed need for diversity become more of an objective in itself than in the judiciary and particularly within the magistary. Recently published statistics on applications and applicants reveal everything about those aspiring to sit on the bench except perhaps graphs of self declared ego, social status, height and weight, IQ and income. There were 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, up 9% compared to the previous year and the second consecutive annual increase. Of the 5,131 applications to join the magistracy which concluded in 2023-24, 2,008 were for appointments as recorded on the new magistrates recruitment process introduced in January 2022. For example we now know that in the year 2022-23 in London 288 ethnic minority candidates representing 53% of such applications did not make a shortlist as did 257 white applicants who also failed. However the total number i.e. percentage of all white applicants in London who failed is not published. From the current 2023-24 figures we learn that 2% of applications to the magistary were self declaring Jewish and 6% Muslim. Last census showed the Jewish population of England and Wales as 0.5% and 6.7% as Muslims. 13% of applications were from those who attended independent schools; approximately twice the percentage of children currently and historically attending such schools. Of those recommended for appointment in the current batch 2% were Jewish and 4% were Muslim. 18% were over 60 years of age, 84% were white, 15% were Asian, black or of mixed race and 52% attended a university. 1,091 or 57% of those recommended for appointment declared themselves to be "professional". Manual, service, technical and craft workers comprised 8% of successful applicants. Female successes were 58% in all. There is much in all the numbers for demographers, sociologists, trade union bosses, politicians and many others to feed from for many months. But my point is whether all this is really necessary. The latest publication from the MOJ is available here.
The CEO of the Magistrates Association has stated that "Recruitment has failed to produce a magistracy that reflects society". Should the lower court be reflected on this subject in this way? District Judges (MC) also sit in magistrates courts. Their proportion of sittings cf their lay colleagues is a secret known only to His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service. We do know that about 90% of them are white. Of 37 lords justices of appeal 33 are men and four are women. On the supreme court, 11 justices are men and one a woman and all white. If we are undergoing surgery do we need to know the diversity statistics of eg anaesthetists? Of course we don`t. We have confidence [or should have] in those supervising the appointment of such experts. I might just remind the reader of my previous two posts on the current failings of those who appoint these supervisory bodies but for the present I must assume that in principle good order applies. It can be argued that having magistrates as representative of those over whom they are in judgement might give confidence to a population but is it not as important that their abilities to perform their task are obvious to all? Over the last two hundred years prejudices in many aspects of our societies have dissipated. The Emancipation Act of 1829 admitted Irish and English Roman Catholics to Parliament and to all but a handful of public offices. Jews who had been previously excluded from being MPs were granted full civil rights in 1858. The Race Relations Act 1965 was the first piece of legislation in the UK to address the prohibition of racial discrimination and followed previously unsuccessful bills. The watchword for the magistracy should be competence. Is it simplistic to consider that being a magistrate is to exercise mental abilities and that those who have shown such capacity are more suited to appointment than those whose skills lie in other directions? Would a consultant cardiologist perhaps be a more capable candidate that her cardiac surgeon colleague? Perhaps appointments committees are approaching their task as a physicist involved in quantum physics: the study of matter and energy at the most fundamental level aiming to uncover the properties and behaviours of the very building blocks of nature whereas an astrophysicist focuses on celestial bodies and the cosmic phenomena that shape the universe. In common terms current fashion is a micro view rather than a macro view. And what of the lawyers who sometimes show their distaste at being under the direction of a non lawyer however capable? Within the legal profession anecdotally their opinion of magistrates varies from "muppets" to comments that they are "out of their depth". To my knowledge no survey has ever been undertaken to discern the real thoughts of criminal lawyers who regularly attend magistrates courts.
It appears that diversity is the tail that wags the dog of magistrates` appointments. There has always been an argument that all courts i.e. magistrates courts, should be presided over by full time professional legally qualified judges of whom around 400 are currently in office. Two decades ago an academic study calculated that if District Judges operated without a legal advisor the costs would be comparable to the then 30,000 magistrates` expenses. 14,576 magistrates are currently listed. The reality is that generally magistrates get it right when it comes to trial verdicts and sentencing. My post of 28th May 2024 offers detailed analysis. If ouvert prejudices in professions and workplaces were always taken seriously and the current obsession with "minor offensive aggressions" were consigned to the dustbins of sociology departments perhaps there would be no need to put diversity at the pinnacle of human resources executives` required "successes".
Once more I place responsibilities on those who appoint the advisory committees who appoint magistrates. If they are, as might be the case, as blinkered as a Derby thoroughbred their failings will be hidden from us. Diversity can be seen as as camouflage for their inefficiencies. It`s all a Russian doll.
No comments:
Post a Comment