It was accompanied, as the FT has written, by a complaint of sorts from the Supreme Court about its diversity:
The Supreme Court acknowledged criticisms over the UK judiciary’s record on diversity as it announced Simler’s appointment. She is only the fifth female justice appointed since the UK’s top court was set up in its current form in 2009.
"We know that certain people, including women, black, Asian, and other ethnic minority groups, and disabled lawyers continue to be under-represented in the judiciary," the Supreme Court said.
"Progress is being made but more needs to be done to increase the pace of change," it added.
I think this is misguided for the following reasons:
- Appointment to the Supreme Court is not a normal job - like an airline pilot etc. It is an extremely influential job and there is a v. limited pool of candidates because you need to have been an outstanding practitioner for 25+ years. You cannot call up some recruitment firm to send over some diverse candidates to virtue signal to the present cultural zeitgeist.
- Our House of Lords/Supreme Court has, until recently, come from people born no later than 1962. The youngest Justice is Lord Sales. During that historical period, the population of England/Wales/Scotland has been almost unanimously white. Thus, it is no surprise that the Law Lords and Justices have thus been unanimously white. Also, no surprise that men - from that era - were more willing than women to diminish their family and social lives for career success.
- Women were excluded in the past in the law and things changed as the decades rolled. Women today can compete on an equal footing with men. Lady Hale, Lady Arden, Lady Black and Lady Rose all attest to this. Should a female judge from the Court of Appeal apply for a Supreme Court position, their application would be treated fairly today. As I mentioned above, there can be no discrimination at the JAC. The Supreme Court's own site highlights that appointment is on merit.
- A selection criteria focused on 'diversity' is illegal under The Equality Act 2010. I also think immoral. Diversity has no relevance to merit.
- Lastly, we don't want to be in a situation where, as an example, a black woman sitting on the Supreme Court might ask herself "Am I here on merit, or am I here to fill a quota?".
Lady Justice Simler must be suitable for the position otherwise she wouldn't have been chosen, and don't people write some rubbish when they don't totally understand the situation in which Lady Justice Simler was chosen.
ReplyDeleteAhhh your last question is a good one that some men might have asked in earlier decades - am I here on merit or to fill a quota? Were wealthy, aristocratic or conservative men EVER appointed exclusively based on merit?
ReplyDeleteYes, it's an interesting thought. Judicial appointment - esp to the highest appeal court - is a lot more transparent nowadays than former times. I would like to say that the law has been a more principled (than, say, the foreign office and other parts of the state) and judges are regarded with more integrity in our society. But, who could now when the system was not transparent.
DeleteThanks for commenting hels.
Your comments are very interesting and make the point that we need to be nuanced in our thinking about popular assumptions. After decades of positive discrimination we are only starting to see results coming through at the highest level now, and I am sure the appointment of Lady Justice Simmler was made on merit. . But there are still multiple inequalities at lower levels and it is really important that these are addressed even more vigorously, because more progress should have been made by now. I watched Jay Blades' film on BBC iPlayer about learning to read at 51.
ReplyDeleteIt highlights how terrible schooling limits life choices. I know for a fact that many children from difficult backgrounds are still dramatically underachieving in just the way he describes. There's long way to go before we can start to wind down positive discrimination..