CAN OPTIMISM BE ENOUGH FROM NOW TO 2029?

Traditionally the first entry in a diary or history reflects in the new year on the highs and lows of that previous. Some commenters are telling us that the  peak of "woke" has passed and that the western world has started to recover its senses.  That is certainly a matter of opinion. 

 With the justice system being subjected to yet more conjecture on how the headlong gallop to systemic breakdown might be averted notwithstanding that every day between 20% - 25% of all the crown courts available are not being utilised a brief look at the structure of advisory committees is of some interest.  If courts are the engines of the system the committees are the designers and assemblers of these engines.  Their "rules of engagement" govern a typically British way of doing things.  Unlike eg USA where many posts in the public domain are elective the British way is of appointment.  The Advisory Committee responsible for the appointment  of magistrates, its composition and its rules is available here.  Of particular or peculiar interest is the following on pp13:-

Application procedure for Advisory Committee members

1.66 These principles apply to the handling of all applications:

• applications must be handled fairly, consistently and expeditiously;

• candidates must be assessed on merit – no other factors must be

considered;  [my bold] 

• candidates must be treated with courtesy and respect;

• it is unlawful for candidates to be excluded or disadvantaged based on

any protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 20105; and

• information about an individual gained through the selection process is confidential

All above seems fair and square or does it.  From Official Statistics:- 

User guide to diversity of the judiciary statistics

Updated 17 December 2024 is the following:

2.2 Judicial appointments

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) enshrined in law the independence of the judiciary and changed the way judges are appointed. As a result of the Act, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was set up in April 2006 to make the appointments process clearer and more accountable. Under the CRA, the JAC’s statutory duties are to:

select applicants solely on merit [my bold] 

select only those with good character

encourage a diverse range of applicants

As part of its diversity strategy, the JAC publishes the diversity profile of applicants at application, shortlisting and recommendation stages.

Perhaps somebody can argue that the bold requirement can live equally with the last of the three "statuary duties"?

Having selected those suitable for judicial appointment those same committees are responsible for advising the Lord Chancellor on the chastisement of those who break the judicial guidelines.  In the calendar year just ended 15 magistrates were removed from the judiciary and 4 tribunal members were similarly ousted.  Not a single judge from recorder to the highest level was fired although there were other lesser sanctions for transgressors. Even  Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram had his fall from grace cushioned when many thought dismissal appropriate.  But then that would be the big wigs admitting failure and that cannot be allowed; can it?  There have been accusations that the Metropolitan Police are operating two tier policing with regard to the almost rampant unpunished  displays of antisemitism by supporters of Gazans.  Surely such double thinking cannot be happening under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice? 

In a nation where we are all becoming inured to politicians refusing to answer legitimate questions is the judiciary becoming just another tool of government when the political establishment feels threatened; eg the very harsh sentences as a result of the summer riots. Many jurisdictions since 1945 have been in thrall to government diktat.  Who`s to say that in this country that would never happen?

As per my post of last week my glass is still half full but for how long can optimism be enough from now to 2029?