Diversity of the judiciary: Legal professions, new appointments and current post-holders - 2022 Statistics

Question 1

1. Main Points

Accepted Answer

1.1 Gender


Women are well represented in the solicitor and Chartered Legal Executive professions, but are less represented among the more experienced and more senior members of the legal professions	Women constitute 39% of barristers, 53% of solicitors and 77% of Chartered Legal Executives. The proportion of women is notably lower for those having 20 or more years’ experience - at 29%, 39% and 69% respectively, but is higher for those less experienced legal professionals who are eligible to apply.
Overall, there is no evidence of disparity in legal judicial selection in 2021-22 for women relative to men when comparing recommendation rates from the eligible pool	Across all legal Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) exercises in 2021-22, women accounted for 49% of applications and 48% of recommendations.
Although the proportion of women has increased slightly over recent years, they remain under-represented in the court judiciary, particularly in senior roles	As at 1 April 2022, about a third (35%) of court judges and half of tribunal judges were women. The proportion remains lower in senior court appointments (30% for High Court and above).

1.2 Ethnicity


Representation of ethnic minorities in the legal profession is comparable to the proportion of the working age population of England and Wales from ethnic minority backgrounds	As at 1 April 2022, ethnic minority individuals together constituted 16% of barristers, 18% of solicitors and 9% of Chartered Legal Executives. These proportions are lower for professionals with 20 or more years’ experience, at 13%, 11% and 4% respectively, but is higher for those less experienced legal professionals who are eligible to apply.
When considered together, there is evidence of disparity for ethnic minority candidates in legal judicial selection exercises in 2021-22	Across all legal exercises in 2021-2022, ethnic minority candidates accounted for 23% of applications and 11% of recommendations.
In the past three years of legal exercises, Asian, black, and mixed ethnic minority individuals were over-represented in applications for judicial appointment. All four ethnic minority groups had lower recommendation rates than white candidates	For all legal exercises between April 2019 and March 2022, Asian, black, mixed and other ethnic minority candidates accounted for 16%, 4%, 3% and 1% of applications and 7%, 1%, 4% and 1% of recommendations respectively.
The proportion of Asian and Mixed ethnicity individuals in the judiciary has slowly increased since 2014, while the proportion of Black and Other ethnic minority individuals has stayed the same in that time. Proportions of ethnic minorities remain lower in senior court roles	As at 1 April 2022, 5% of judges were from Asian backgrounds, 1% were from black backgrounds, 2% were from mixed ethnic backgrounds and 1% were from other ethnic minority backgrounds. The proportion of ethnic minorities is lower for senior court appointments (5% for High Court and above) compared to others.

1.3 Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity


Representation of gender-ethnicity intersection groups varies across the legal professions. For barristers, representation of white men is higher, but for Chartered Legal Executives it is white women	As at 1 April 2022, white men constituted the highest proportion of barristers (52%), followed by white women (32%), ethnic minority men (8%) and ethnic minority women (7%). White men and white women constituted the highest proportion of solicitors (40% and 41%), followed by ethnic minority women (11%), then men (8%). White women constituted two thirds (70%) of Chartered Legal Executives.
Representation of both ethnic minority men and women is higher among applications than recommendations. Both groups have lower recommendation rates than white candidates	Across all legal exercises between April 2019 and April 2022, ethnic minority men accounted for 11% of applications and 7% of recommendations. Ethnic minority women accounted for 13% of applications and 6% of recommendations. White women accounted for 36% of applications and 40% of recommendations. White men accounted for the remaining 40% of applications and 47% of recommendations.
More than half of the judiciary are white men and over a third are white women. Ethnic minority men and women each account for 5% of judges	As at 1 April 2022, ethnic minority men and women each accounted for 5% of judges in post. White women accounted for 37% and white men accounted for the remaining 53%. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with a higher proportion of women from both white and ethnic minority backgrounds among tribunal judges. Within the senior courts, white men constituted a larger proportion of posts.

1.4 Professional Background


Representation of solicitors decreases predominantly between application and shortlisting during the judicial selection process	Across all legal exercises in 2021-2022, there was a higher representation of solicitors (45%) than barristers (39%) among applications, but solicitors constituted a smaller percentage of recommendations (27% compared to 54%). Chartered Legal Executives constituted 1% of all applications.
Most court judges have a background as a barrister, though this is not the case with tribunal judges	Overall, 31% of court judges and 63% of tribunal judges were from non-barrister backgrounds (mostly solicitors). However, in the more senior court posts (High Court and above) only 5% of current judges were non-barristers. In both courts and tribunals, the proportion with a non-barrister background has fallen compared to 2014.

1.5 Intersection of Gender and Professional Background


Male and female solicitors showed similar progression rates for legal exercises between 2019 and 2022	Across all legal exercises between April 2019 and March 2022, male and female solicitors both had a recommendation rate from application of 8%. Male and female barristers had rates of 16% and 17% respectively.
Male barristers are the largest gender-profession group in the judiciary and are more represented in senior posts	At 1 April 2022: 38% of judges were male barristers, 21% were female barristers, 21% were male solicitors and 20% were female solicitors. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with a higher proportion of male and female solicitors among tribunal judges. Within the senior court judiciary, male barristers occupied the majority of posts.

1.6 Intersection of Ethnicity and Professional Background


Ethnic minority barristers have lower recommendation rates than white barristers. Ethnic minority solicitors have lower recommendation rates than all three other ethnicity-profession groups	Across all legal exercises between April 2019 and March 2022, ethnic minority barristers accounted for 9% of applications and 7% of recommendations. Ethnic minority solicitors accounted for 15% of applications and 5% of recommendations. White solicitors accounted for 40% of applications and 32% of recommendations. White barristers accounted for 36% of applications and 56% of recommendations.
White barristers are the largest ethnicity-profession group in the judiciary and are more represented in senior posts	At 1 April 2022: 6% of judges were ethnic minority barristers, 4% were ethnic minority solicitors, 38% were white solicitors and 52% were white barristers. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with a higher proportion of ethnic minority solicitors among tribunal judges. Within the senior court judiciary, white former barristers occupied almost all posts (95%).

1.7 Intersection of Gender, Ethnicity and Professional Background


White female barristers, closely followed by white male barristers have the highest recommendation rates from application compared to all other gender-ethnicity-profession groups	From application, white female barristers had a recommendation rate of 19% and white male barristers had a rate of 18%. Ethnic minority female solicitors had the lowest rate of 3%, whilst for ethnic minority male solicitors it was 4%.
White male barristers are the largest gender-ethnicity-profession group in the judiciary and occupy most senior court posts	At 1 April 2022: 3% of judges were ethnic minority male barristers, 2% were ethnic minority male solicitors, 3% were ethnic minority female barristers and 2% were ethnic minority female solicitors. 34% were white male barristers, 20% were white male solicitors, 18% were white female barristers and 18% were white female solicitors. Representation of these groups differed between courts and tribunals, with higher proportions of ethnic minority individuals, solicitors and women among tribunal judges.

1.8 Age


Older applicants have lower recommendation rates than younger applicants, with 77% of new appointees aged under 50	Across all legal selection exercises in 2021-22, those aged 50 and over accounted for 35% of applications and 23% of recommendations, while for those aged under 50 the proportions were 65% and 77% respectively
Most judges are aged 50 or over	70% of court judges and 69% of tribunal judges were aged 50 and over, with 35% aged 60 and over in courts and 36% in tribunals.

1.9 Non-legal Members of Tribunals


Compared with judges, a higher proportion of non-legal members are women, or from an ethnic minority background	Across all tribunal non-legal members in post as at 1 April 2022, 56% were women, 18% were from an ethnic minority background and 83% were aged 50 and above.
In judicial appointments a higher proportion of recommendations are for women and ethnic minority individuals in non-legal exercises than in legal exercises	Across all non-legal exercises in 2021/2022, 56% of recommendations were women and 21% were from ethnic minority backgrounds. In non-legal exercises between 2019 and 2022, 15% of recommendations were from Asian backgrounds, 5% were from black backgrounds, 3% were from mixed ethnic backgrounds and 1% were from other ethnic backgrounds.
Women and Asian candidates have higher recommendation rates from application than men and white candidates respectively	Across all non-legal exercises in 2021/2022, recommendation rates from application were 2 percentage points higher for women than they were for men. In non-legal exercises between 2019 and 2022, rates for Asian candidates were 7 percentage points higher than for white candidates and rates for ethnic minority men and women, and white women, were all higher than for white men.

1.10 Magistrates


Compared with judges, a higher proportion of magistrates are women, or from an ethnic minority background	As at 1 April 2022, 57% of sitting magistrates were women, 14% were from an ethnic minority background and 79% were aged 50 and above.

Question 2

2. Statistician’s Comment

Accepted Answer

This report provides figures about the diversity of judicial office holders and the legal professions who provide the eligible pool of candidates for most judicial roles in England and Wales. Statistics and analyses are also presented on the diversity of the candidates who apply for those judicial posts via selection exercises.

Latest figures show a continuation of the gradual upward trend seen in the overall proportion of female and ethnic minority judges in post. Women make up a higher proportion of new entrants than leavers, but they continue to be under-represented in the courts judiciary in 2022, particularly in the more senior roles. The proportion of judges who identify as being from an ethnic minority background has been slowly increasing, from 7% in 2014 to 10% in 2022. However, there are different trends between the ethnic groups, with increases seen in judges of Asian and mixed ethnicity backgrounds, but no evidence of a change in the proportion of black and other minority ethnic judges in this period.

For legal professionals (barristers, solicitors and Chartered Legal Executives) who make up the eligible pool of future candidates, the overall proportions of females and those of ethnic minority backgrounds are generally higher than those of existing judges in post. These proportions are even higher for the less experienced legal professionals who are earlier in their careers though still potential candidates for future judicial selection exercises.

For judicial selection exercises completed during 2021-22, analyses show that overall there was no statistically significant difference in recommendation rates from the eligible pool for women relative to men. There was a statistically significant difference between ethnic minority and white candidates, though this varies within specific exercises. Recommendation rates from application (as well as from the eligible pool) for solicitor candidates were significantly lower than for barrister candidates.

Year-on-year comparisons are not made for selection exercise data as these can be affected by the number and type of exercises run in any given year, and can vary according to recruitment needs and the timing of reporting. For example, the two largest fee-paid entry level judicial exercises were still open on 1 April 2021 and so were not included in the 2021 report but have been included in this year’s statistics, leading to a much higher number of applicants this year compared to last year (9,052 compared to 3,471). We therefore advise further caution when comparing overall judicial appointment statistics from one year to the next. Nevertheless, it is possible to look at roles over time for certain larger exercises. For instance, Recorder and District Judge exercises saw a general increase in the ethnic minority proportions in both applications and recommendations in the last three years compared to previous years.

Additionally, aggregated data across all legal exercises over a three-year period allows more in-depth analyses, such as investigating whether there are differences in rates of progression between ethnicity groups. Analysis across all legal exercises from April 2019 to March 2022 shows a varying disparity in the outcomes for the different ethnic groups; recommendation rates from the eligible pool for Asian, black and other minority ethnic candidates were significantly lower than for white candidates, but were significantly higher for candidates from mixed ethnic backgrounds compared to white candidates. However, there was no significant difference between other and mixed ethnic minority candidates compared to white candidates when looking at recommendation rates from application, illustrating that in some instances recommendation rates can be considerably different whether looked at from the eligible pool or the application stage. This is because application rates sometimes can be higher than expected for certain groups.

Combining data across 3 years also allows analyses on the intersection of diversity characteristics - for example after controlling for gender we still see a difference in the recommendation rates for those from ethnic minority groups compared to white candidates, or for solicitors compared to barristers.

Alongside figures for court and tribunal judges, this publication also includes figures about non-legal tribunal members and magistrates, which for example show that both overall have a greater representation of women and ethnic minorities compared to judges in legally-qualified positions.

Question 3

3. Things you need to know

Accepted Answer

3.1 Overall

This publication sets out patterns and trends relating to judicial diversity, bringing together data on legal professions (which provide the pool from which the future judiciary are drawn), judicial appointments, and sitting judges and other post holders. It covers diversity at different stages of the path to judicial office, as summarised in the image below.

A key aim of this publication is to bring together data into one place that before 2020 was published separately, and in doing so, provide a comprehensive picture of the data available and evidence gaps.

Much of the diversity data included in this publication depends on voluntary self-declaration by legal profession members, judicial post applicants and judicial office holders. All percentages are calculated using the proportion of individuals where the characteristic is known. A characteristic is considered to be ‘unknown’ if an individual has asked for their data to not be shared further, has chosen ‘prefer not to say’, or has left the answer blank. For intersections of multiple characteristics groups, individuals in the ‘unknown’ group are those that were ‘unknown’ for one or more of the characteristics being intersected.

The minimum required declaration rate^{[footnote 1]} for this publication is 60%. Where this declaration rate has not been met, the data has not been included. As declaration rates improve, we hope to include more information in future releases. Further details are given in the background guidance note.

As with the previous report, we have considered the newest Cabinet Office guidance^{[footnote 2]} and the findings of the Sewell Report^{[footnote 3]}. Recommendations included moving away from the term Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and disaggregating ethnicity as much as possible. As a result, in this publication we refer to ethnicity and race data using the high-level categories of those who self-identify as coming from an Asian or Asian British, black or black British, mixed, white or other ethnic background. Where the numbers in these high-level categories are small, we aggregate the Asian, black, mixed and other groups and refer to this group using the term “ethnic minority”, then compare this group to the white group^{[footnote 4]} . These categories essentially refer to exactly the same ethnic groups as those used in previous reports, except with a new name.

For comparisons with the white group as a whole, we use the term “ethnic minority” however this term excludes white minorities. We use this aggregated group when presenting data on the intersection of ethnicity with other diversity characteristics.

We recognise that using these high-level categories and further aggregating them may not capture differences in the outcomes of those making up the groups, but this is the most granular we are able to present without risking disclosure of information or the robustness of findings.

The data tables accompanying this report provide breakdowns of ethnicity in the high-level categories referred to above for the legal professions and Judicial Office (JO). This breakdown is also provided for the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). However, due to the risk of disclosure from small numbers in a single year, only data for the aggregated ethnic minority group is provided for the 2021-22 data. Statistics on the more granular groups are available as an aggregation of numbers of candidates over the previous 3 years of data (2019-20, 2020-21,2021-22), and so are only available in the “JAC_3_years” tables.

3.2 Legal professions

Data on the legal professions included in this publication^{[footnote 5]} is provided as at 1 April 2022, with definitions as follows:

Solicitors: all practising solicitors i.e. those who hold a practising certificate (PC).
Barristers: all practising barristers (those who hold a PC).
Chartered Legal Executives: all fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) excluding students, affiliates, associates and graduates.

Definitions of Post Qualification Experience (PQE) for each profession included in this publication:

Solicitors: number of practising certificates held (rather than years since admission).
Barristers: years of practice (the number of years since an individual completed pupillage).
Chartered Legal Executives: based on years of experience for members who have achieved fellowship^{[footnote 6]}

Definitions of seniority^{[footnote 7]} for each profession included in this publication:

Solicitors: solicitors at the lower level and partner at the higher level. Partner includes owners and managers of law firms. There is no equivalent way of identifying seniority for in-house solicitors, who are all included in the lower level of solicitor^{[footnote 8]}.
Barristers: junior barristers (lower level) and Queen’s Counsel (QC)^{[footnote 9]} at the higher level.
Chartered Legal Executives: CILEX fellows are the lower level of seniority, partners represent the higher level of seniority (if an individual is a fellow and partner, they are counted as partner)

Solicitors, barristers and Chartered Legal Executives comprise very different populations and professions. Their population sizes are highly varied, as are their members’ qualification, progression and employment processes, eligibility and potential interest in applying for, and consequent representation in, the judiciary. As a result, caution is advised in making comparisons between different professions, and with the JAC and Judicial Office data. In particular, Chartered Legal Executives are unable to apply for judicial roles requiring 7 or more years legal experience^{[footnote 10]}.

3.3 Judicial Appointments: Applications and Selections

The JAC figures include all 31 exercises which closed^{[footnote 11]} between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022^{[footnote 12]}. JAC figures on ethnic minority groups and the intersection of diversity characteristics (Gender, Ethnicity and Professional Background) include all 101 exercises which closed between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022. Senior appointments^{[footnote 13]} are not covered in the main commentary but are included in the accompanying tables, and exercises with fewer than 10 recommendations are grouped to maintain applicant confidentiality.

Recommendations from JAC selection exercises will not directly correspond to new entrants to the judiciary also covered in this publication, as there is a lag between selection exercises being completed and individuals taking up their post, and some will already have had a judicial role (often fee-paid).

Where 2 or more applicants are assessed as being of equal merit, the JAC can select an applicant for the purpose of increasing judicial diversity using the Equal Merit Provision (EMP) introduced by the Crime and Courts Act 2013^{[footnote 14]}. EMP can be applied at both the shortlisting and recommendation stage. EMP was applied at the shortlisting stage 7 times within 5 exercises, with EMP being applied twice in 2 exercises. EMP was applied at the selection stage on 6 occasions in 5 exercise, with EMP being applied twice in 1 exercise. In total, 183 candidates were advanced to the next stage of the process as a result of using EMP at the shortlisting stage. Additionally, a total of 25 candidates were recommended as a result of using EMP at the selection day stage.

A recommendation rate refers to the proportion of applicants (who have declared a specified characteristic) that were recommended for appointment which allows success of those with different characteristics to be compared within an exercise. These rates will depend on the number of applicants for the exercise as well as the number of posts available so that comparisons of rates between exercises should be avoided. Similarly, rates are also produced for eligible pool to recommendation for appointment.

The Relative Rate Index (RRI) is used to compare the relative success of two different groups, for example men and women. More information on the method of calculation and reporting can be found in the user guide that is published alongside this report.

In this publication we refer to two types of significance: practical significance and statistical significance. Practical significance refers to when an RRI for a particular comparison between two groups falls outside the 0.8 to 1.25 ‘zone of tolerance’; if it falls outside these bounds the result can be considered to be of practical importance. Statistical significance refers to when there is a less than 5% chance that a result is due to random variation, and means we are confident that there is a real difference between two groups of candidates. For more detailed explanations of these concepts, please see the user guide that accompanies this report.

Eligibility for judicial selection varies from one exercise to another. The Eligible Pool (EP) for an exercise presents the gender, ethnicity and professional background of individuals who meet the minimum eligibility requirements – including minimum years of experience – for a specific legal exercise^{[footnote 15]}. There are three broad eligibility types:

Posts requiring a minimum 5 years legal experience, as a barrister, solicitor or Chartered Legal Executive
Posts requiring a minimum 7 years legal experience as a barrister or solicitor
Posts requiring previous judicial experience (in addition to a number of years of legal experience)

This publication also includes figures for average years of PQE among candidates who have applied for judicial selection^{[footnote 16]}. These are a guide to actual levels of experience of applicants, and are therefore different from the eligible pool which is based on all those eligible for a role (many of whom will not apply).

When considering applicants’ professional background, applicants for judicial roles are analysed based on their full career history (i.e. whether they were ever a solicitor, or ever a barrister) as well as their current legal role at time of application. The “ever” legal role is based on applicants’ self-reporting and does not take account of the relative time spent in each profession. Numbers of Chartered Legal Executives are not high enough to be considered in the “ever” legal role analysis.

This publication presents data for selection exercises concluded during 2021-22 and does not draw comparisons with previous years as these can be affected by the number and type of exercises run in a year, which can vary according to recruitment needs.

The data and associated representation percentages can also be sensitive to when exercises are formally closed and how this compares to the report’s cut-off date of 1 April in each year. For example, there are often three large fee-paid exercises run on an annual basis (Recorder, Deputy District Judge, and Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal and Employment Tribunal). The latter two exercises were still open on 1 April 2021 and so were not included in the 2021 report but have been included in this year’s statistics. For this reason, we advise further caution when comparing judicial appointment statistics from one year to the next.

3.4 Judicial office holders

JO data in this publication relates to judges and non-legal members of tribunals in post as at 1 April 2022, as well as leavers and new entrants from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.

Judges may hold more than one post at a time, for example some judges sit in more than one chamber, tribunal or court. In these statistics, a judge is counted only against their primary appointment, which is the one considered as their main judicial post. There are a small number of posts that are by definition not primary appointments, for example Upper Tier Tribunal President and Employment Appeal Tribunal President. The post-holders are included only in the counts for their primary appointment, meaning that for these posts statistics are not presented.

Throughout this report, where the term “tribunal judges” is used it is referring only to legal tribunal judges and does not include non-legal tribunal members. Statistics on non-legal tribunal members are discussed in the final chapter “Non-legal and Magistrates” only.

The data covers all courts in England and Wales, all tribunals administered by HMCTS, Welsh tribunals not administered by HMCTS and magistrates in England and Wales. This includes the Employment Tribunal Scotland, in addition to tribunals in England and Wales. Tribunals that are the responsibility of the devolved Welsh Government are not included.

Question 4

4. Overview of the legal professions and judiciary

Accepted Answer

The actual levels of applicants’ PQE are often greater than the minimum statutory requirement for judicial appointments of 5 or 7 years.

Of all applicants for court and tribunal positions requiring at least 5 years’ post-qualification experience, applicants had around 18 years’ experience on average. Of those who applied for positions requiring at least 7 years’ of experience, applicants had around 20 years’ experience on average.

The number of magistrates has fallen steadily in recent years, decreasing by 50% in the past decade.

4.1 Legal professions

As at 1 April 2022, there were 17,252 barristers, 154,985 solicitors and 8,544 Chartered Legal Executives.

The varying size of the professions should be kept in mind when interpreting the figures presented throughout this publication relating to the percentage of those in different professions with various characteristics (typically there will be more solicitors than barristers or Chartered Legal Executives). Absolute numbers are given in the accompanying data tables.

4.2 Judicial Appointments: Applications and Selections

Exercises in 2021-22

The JAC completed 31 selection exercises (excluding senior judicial appointments) in 2021-22^{[footnote 17]}:

16 exercises were for court posts
15 were for tribunal posts, of which 7 were for non-legal tribunal member posts

While this publication only makes direct reference to the 10 large legal and 5 large non-legal exercises, totals include relevant smaller exercises (unless otherwise stated).

Overall, there were 9,052 applications, resulting in 1,098 recommendations for immediate appointment (s87)^{[footnote 18]}

8,374 applications for legal posts, with 888 recommendations
678 applications for non-legal posts, with 210 recommendations

In addition, a total of 14 applications were received and 3 recommendations made for the senior judicial Court of Appeal exercise completed in 2021-22^{[footnote 19]}.

Levels of experience among applicants

While information on the eligible pool for each exercise is presented (where available), the actual levels of applicants’ PQE are often greater than the minimum statutory requirement of 5 or 7 years. As a result, further diversity breakdowns for the legal professions are given in the following chapters to allow a more meaningful comparison.

Court positions requiring 5 years’ PQE: average PQE of applicants was 17 years
Court positions requiring 7 years’ PQE: average 20 years
Tribunal positions requiring 5 years’ PQE: average 19 years
Tribunal positions requiring 7 years’ PQE: average 21 years

High average PQE among applicants does not necessarily lead to a better chance of success. Further investigation into the relationship between experience and success in the judicial appointments process is currently being conducted by the Judicial Diversity Forum. It will look at experience in terms of exposure to types of legal work, seniority level and PQE. The findings of this investigation will be published in the future.

Comparison with previous years

This publication presents data for selection exercises concluded during 2021-22 and does not draw comparisons with previous years. Historical comparisons can be affected by the number and type of exercises run in any given year, which can vary according to recruitment needs.

The data and associated representation percentages can also be sensitive to when exercises are formally closed and how this compares to the report’s cut-off date of 1 April in each year. For example, there are often three large fee-paid exercises run on an annual basis (Recorder, Deputy District Judge, and Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal and Employment Tribunal). The latter two exercises were still open on 1 April 2021 and so were not included in the 2021 report but have been included in this year’s statistics. For this reason, we advise further caution when comparing judicial appointment statistics from one year to the next.

However, compared to the pre-JAC years (1998-99 to 2005-06), the JAC period has seen a clear increase in the representation of women and ethnic minority candidates at both the application and recommendation stages, for the four appointments where data is consistently available^{[footnote 20]}. Changes in the representation of solicitors between the pre-JAC and JAC periods varies by exercise. This data is presented in Table 2.5 of the accompanying tables.

4.3 Judicial office holders

As at 1 April 2022, by primary appointments there were:

3,470 court judges
1,753 tribunal judges, with an additional 3,283 non-legal members of tribunals.

The overall number of court and tribunal judges has fluctuated over time, and there is no consistent pattern of increase or decrease. Since 2012 (the earliest year with data available on both courts and tribunals), the numbers of court judges (3,575 in 2012), and tribunal judges (2,060 in 2012) have both decreased.

This publication also covers new entrants to, and leavers from, the judiciary. Turnover in the judiciary tends to be relatively low, with 514 judges beginning their first appointment in 2021-22 (333 court, 181 tribunal judges) and 236 leaving in the same period (119 court, 117 tribunal).

There were 12,506 magistrates across England and Wales. The number of magistrates has fallen steadily in recent years, decreasing by 50% from 25,170 since 2012.

Question 5

5. Gender

Accepted Answer

5.1 Legal Professions

Women are well represented in the solicitor and Chartered Legal Executive professions, but are less so among the more experienced and more senior members of the legal professions.

For all Solicitors, Barristers, and Chartered Legal Professionals, the proportion of women is lower at more senior compared to less senior levels.

Considering each profession as a whole, compared to men, women constituted a lower proportion of barristers (39%), over half of solicitors (53%) and a higher proportion of Chartered Legal Executives (77%).

Post Qualification Experience

In practice, most applicants for judicial roles have more than the minimum experience. For court and tribunal posts requiring 5 years or more experience, applicants have around 18 years’ experience on average. Among those with 15 or more years’ PQE, women constituted 33% of barristers, 45% of solicitors and 74% of Chartered Legal Executives.

For court and tribunal posts requiring 7 years’ or more experience, applicants have on average around 20 years’ experience. Among those with 20 or more years’ PQE, women constituted 29% of barristers, 39% of solicitors and 69% of Chartered Legal Executives (though Chartered Legal Executives are not eligible to apply for these roles).

Figure 1: representation of women in the legal professions by PQE band, April 2022 Across all legal professions, the proportion of women is notably lower for those having 20+ years’ experience.

Seniority^{[footnote 21]}

Compared to men, at 1st April 2022:

Among barristers, women constituted a lower proportion than men at both the lower (junior barrister) and higher (Queen’s Counsel) seniority levels (Figure 2).
Among solicitors, there was a larger proportion of women than men at lower seniority levels (solicitor), but a lower proportion of women at higher seniority levels (partner).
Among Chartered Legal Executives, there was a larger proportion of women than men at both the lower (fellow) and higher (partner) seniority levels.

Figure 2: representation of women in the legal professions by seniority, April 2022 For all three professions, the proportion of women is lower at more senior compared to less senior levels.

5.2 Judicial Appointments: Applications and Selections

Overall, there is no evidence of disparity in legal judicial selection in 2021-22 for women relative to men when comparing recommendation rates from the eligible pool.

Overall View

Across all legal JAC exercises in 2021-22, women^{[footnote 22]} accounted for 49% of applications, 47% of those shortlisted and 48% of those recommended for appointment.

3,731 applications were from women, of whom 393 were recommended for appointment^{[footnote 23]}.

Across all legal exercises in 2021-22, when considering the eligible pool there was not strong evidence of disparity for women. From eligible pool to recommendation, the estimated^{[footnote 24]} RRI of 0.89 shows that overall the success rate for women from the eligible pool was 0.89 times the rate for men (or 11% lower for women than men). This difference is not statistically or practically significant.

48% of recommendations were women; this compares with an expected 51% overall if recommendations were in line with the overall eligible pool for 2021-22 exercises. Representation of women in the legal exercises remained relatively stable between the application and recommendation stages - women represented 49% of applications and 47% of those shortlisted.

Compared to men, women had a slightly higher recommendation rate from shortlisting, but a slightly lower shortlisting rate from application (Figure 3). The smaller difference seen between men and women in the recommendation rate from application was because these other rate differences mostly cancelled each other out.

Figure 3: progression of applicants through the exercise stages by gender (all legal exercises completed in 2021-22).

Exercise-specific Analysis

There was some variation across exercises run in 2021-22. When considering women relative to men, from the eligible pool to recommendation we can be statistically confident a disparity exists for only one of the exercises (Figure 4) – the s9(4) Deputy High Court Judge exercise.

For the s9(4) Deputy High Court Judge exercise the RRI of 0.42 indicates that women were 0.42 times as likely (or 58% less likely) to be successful relative to men^{[footnote 25]}. However, the RRI value for application to recommendation was 0.88 and not statistically significant. This means that there is no evidence of disparity in success rate between men and women when looking at applicants rather than the eligible pool.

For s9(1) authority to Act as Judges of the High Court exercise women were 39% less likely to be successful (or 0.61 times) than men. However, because this RRI was not statistically significant, we cannot be confident that there is a true difference between genders in this exercise.

Figure 4: RRI for women compared to men, from eligible pool to recommendation (all legal exercises completed in 2021-22). Statistically significant results – where the confidence interval does not overlap the parity line - are light blue. The tolerance zone is shaded grey; results falling within this zone are considered to represent a disparity which is not large enough to be considered practically important (and tend not to be statistically significant).

Representation percentages (Figure 5) help to show the progress of women at different stages of the selection process. In comparison to the eligible pool, the representation of women was higher at the recommendation stage for three of the ten large legal exercises, with one the same.

Figure 5: representation of women at different exercise stages, by eligible pool type (large legal exercises completed in 2021-22). Representation of women was higher at recommendation stage than in the eligible pool for three of the ten large legal exercises.

5.3 Judicial Office Holders

Female representation among judges in post has increased over recent years.

In the courts, women were less represented in the more senior posts. However, women made up more than half of senior posts in tribunals (presidents^{[footnote 26]}). Women made up a higher proportion of new entrants compared to leavers over the past year.

Judges in post

As at 1 April 2022, women represented:

35% of all court judges – just less than 2 percentage points higher^{[footnote 27]} than in 2021, and 11 percentage points higher than in 2014 (Figure 6).
52% of all tribunal judges – 2 percentage points higher than in 2020 and 9 percentage points higher than in 2014.

Figure 6: proportion of court and tribunal judges that were women as at 1 April, from 2014. The proportion of women judges remains lower in courts than tribunals and has increased more quickly in tribunals in the last year.

For context, women account for just over half of the general population aged 25-69^{[footnote 28]} and just under half of the economically active population of England and Wales. However, as judicial roles require substantial legal experience, a direct comparison with the general population does not provide as much insight on the progression of representation of women in the judiciary than consideration of the makeup of the legal professions (as presented in the earlier section).

Entrants and leavers

New entrants: the proportion of new entrants to the judiciary during 2021-22 – those not previously holding a judicial appointment – that were women was higher compared to judges in post as at 1 April 2022 for court judges and for tribunal judges^{[footnote 29]} (Figure 7).

Promotions: Women made up 35% of promoted judges in courts and 63% of promoted judges in tribunals during 2021-22. These figures can be affected year-on-year by the mix of roles involved.

Leavers: A lower proportion of leavers from the judiciary were women compared to those in post, which reflects the lower proportion of older and more experienced judges that are women.

For example, of those in post at 1 April 2022, women made up 45% of court judges under age 50, compared with 31% of those aged 50 and over (and 23% of those aged 60 and over). Tribunals showed a similar pattern – women made up 57% of those under age 50, compared to 50% of those aged 50 and over.

Figure 7: representation of women among court and tribunal judges leaving and joining the judiciary, 1 April 2021 – 31 March 2022. Representation of women was higher among new entrants and those in post compared to leavers.

Patterns by type of appointment

The representation of women across the judiciary varied by appointment type and seniority (Figure 8).

In the courts, women made up 30% of judges in more senior posts (High Court and above). The highest level of representation for women was among the District Judges (County Courts) at 44%.

In tribunals, women accounted for more than half of the most senior roles (Presidents)^{[footnote 29]}.

Figure 8: representation of women among court and tribunal judges by appointment, 1 April 2022. The representation of women is generally lower for more senior posts in the courts.

Patterns by region

The representation of women across the court judiciary also varies considerably by region, from 28% in Wales, to 45% in the South East. Variations may reflect the nature of the appointments in the different regions, as well as the underlying regional make-up of both the general population and the eligible pool. Further information is available in the accompanying data tables.

Question 6

6. Ethnicity

Accepted Answer

6.1 Legal Professions

Representation of ethnic minorities in the legal profession is comparable to the proportion of the working age population of England and Wales from ethnic minority backgrounds^{[footnote 30]}.

Representation of individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds is lower among legal professionals with more experience and among higher seniority positions.

Overall Picture in Each Profession

As at 1 April 2022, considering each profession as a whole, ethnic minority individuals together constituted 16% of barristers, 18% of solicitors and 9% of Chartered Legal Executives, though representation of these ethnic minorities generally fell with increasing experience and seniority.

Individuals self-identifying as of Asian or Asian British ethnicity constituted 8% of barristers, 12% of solicitors and 5% of Chartered Legal Executives. Based on 2011 Census data, 8% of the working age population (16-64) in England and Wales are from Asian or Asian British backgrounds. The comparative economically active population (EAP) figure based on 2020 Annual Population Survey (APS) data was 7.4%.

Individuals self-identifying as of black or black British ethnicity constituted 3% of barristers, 3% of solicitors and 3% of Chartered Legal Executives. Based on 2011 Census data, 3% of the working age population are from black or black British backgrounds. The comparative EAP figure based on 2020 APS data was 3.6%.

Individuals self-identifying as having mixed ethnicity constituted 4% of barristers, 2% of solicitors and 2% of Chartered Legal Executives. Based on 2011 Census data, 2% of the working age population are from a mixed ethnic background. The comparative EAP figure based on 2020 APS data was 1.6%.

Individuals self-identifying their ethnicity as being in the other ethnic group (not Asian, black, mixed or white) constituted 1% of barristers, 2% of solicitors and 0% of Chartered Legal Executives. Based on 2011 Census data, 1% of the working age population are from other backgrounds. The comparative EAP figure based on 2020 APS data was 1.6%.

The representation of Asian or Asian British ethnicity was higher for solicitors compared to the working age or economically active populations, and the representation of individuals of mixed ethnicity was higher for all three legal professions compared to the working age or economically active populations.