Quotas for judges?

Monday's paper edition of the Guardian bore, at the top of the front page, pictures of the bewigged visages of the ten newest appointees to the High Court. These, the headline informed us, were the "first 10 high court judges [appointed] under [the] new diversity rules".

The report then went on to complain that the new high court judges were all white, male, barristers. Such oppressed groups as non-whites, women, and, um, solicitors were still dangerously under-represented, we read. In support of this contention, they cited that renowned paragon of virtue and goodness, Keith Vaz. With such moral authority as his name confers, can we doubt that the Guardian is right, when it implies that there is a significant problem?

Well, yes, of course we can. For a start, neither Vaz (who, lest we forget, has something of a track record of making unevidenced claims of discrimination, in respect of the legal profession, as elsewhere) nor the Guardian has actually produced any evidence of discrimination. They simply infer, from the fact that the new appointees are all white men, that some form of discrimination must have taken place. And this simply is not sufficient evidence on which to base any reasonable claim.

Their implicit suggestion that there was anti-female discrimination is particularly dubious. Judicial appointments have, since 2006, been the business of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). The creation of the JAC marked a move away from appointment of judges by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with other judges, and was created because it was alleged that the existing system was leading to an insufficiently diverse judiciary (hence the reference to "new diversity rules" in the Guardian headline). A cursory examination of the JAC's website reveals that seven of the fifteen commissioners are female, as are three of the five members of the commission's "leadership team". Presumably they all engaged in discrimination against their own sex. On the ethnic front, two of the commissioners are non-white, including the chairman, Baroness Prashar. Although this is obviously a minority, it does nonetheless constitute 13% of the entire body, which means that non-whites are, in fact, over-represented. So, in essence, what Vaz and the Guardian, not to mention numerous outraged letter writers ("disgusted of Islington"?), are alleging, albeit only by implication, is that a body composed of roughly equal numbers of men and women, in which non-whites were over-represented, and which was headed by a non-white woman, discriminated against, um, non-whites and women.

One has to wonder what the Guardian are hoping to achieve. After all, they stuck their (implied) allegation of discrimination on the very front page of the newspaper. One assumes that they feel that some change is due. And, since the JAC asserts that it appoints by merit, one can only assume that this change will involve racial and sexual quotas. This approach has previously been advocated by Britain's first black woman High Court judge, Mrs Justice Dobbs, and it is as idiotic now as it was then. As idiotic, indeed, as demands for such quotas always are. And the reason why they are idiotic is clear. Since there is no evidence to contradict the JAC's claim that is selects on merit, we can only assume that quotas will either have no effect (if the number of non-white/female candidates who are the best candidates meets or exceeds the quota), or will lead to the appointment of inferior candidates over superior candidates. If it's the former, it will be pointless, and if it's the latter (as I suspect it would be), then it will be positively harmful. After all, it is important that any job should be done as well as possible, and this applies doubly when the job is one so vital as the administration of law and justice.

Wanted: Lynch Mob

A paranoid schizophrenic who punched a 96-year-old war veteran in the face, leaving him blind in one eye, walked free from court yesterday after a judge ruled that detaining him was not in the best interests of the public.

Stephen Gordon, 44, was captured on CCTV launching a savage, unprovoked attack on defenceless Shah Chaudhury after they bumped into each other on a crowded tram in south London.

Other afternoon passengers, including children, looked on in horror as Gordon called Mr Chaudhury a "b******" and lashed out at the great-grandfather with his clenched right fist.

In a statement to Croydon Crown Court Mr Chaudhury, a British citizen, said he had been standing in the aisle of the tram because nobody would give up their seat for him.

Which is bad enough in itself, although hardly surprising: London is, after all, the world centre for rudeness and discourtesy. On crowded tube trains I have actually seen healthy young people, who would be quite capable of standing for a few minutes, pushing the elderly out of the way in their selfish desperation to get a seat for themselves.

He was gripping a rail with both hands to steady himself when Gordon tried to squeeze by under his arms.

In the process Gordon’s hat fell off, triggering the attack.

“I had done nothing to provoke him,’’ said Mr Chaudhury. “The driver and the other passengers came to my aid and I was taken to hospital.”

At a trial earlier this year Gordon, of Academy Gardens, Croydon, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm.

During the trial Gordon claimed that Mr Chaudhury had punched him.

Causing GBH with intent carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The attack was vicious and unprovoked, the victim was about as defenceless as you can get, and has suffered severe adverse consequences as a result of the attack (as well as losing the sight in one eye, he has suffered a general deterioration in his health, and now resides in a care home) and Gordon appears to have been completely unrepentant. In these circumstances, what sentence do you think Gordon got?

He was sentenced yesterday to a three year supervision order which requires him to receive psychiatric treatment.

“At first blush it is not a difficult sentencing exercise, an immediate and significant prison sentence would well be justified,” Judge Kenneth Macrae told the court.

“That said it would do nothing to protect the public in the future and my real concern is the public. It seems to me that the best way of ensuring that he is not a risk, is in relying on various support from psychiatrists and probation officers.”

I would suggest that Gordon would be still less of a threat to the public, were he to reside behind the sturdy walls of one of Her Majesty's prisons, while receiving "support from psychiatrists". Judge Macrae also seems to have completely rejected any notion that Gordon should actually be punished for his behaviour, or that the sentence given should aim to deter anyone else from pursuing a similar course of conduct. Indeed, it would rather appear that Gordon has got off almost scot-free. What does that tell us about the extent to which the criminal has become favoured over the victim in the British criminal justice system?

Personally, I would rather like to see Gordon strung-up from a lamppost. And, I can't say that I'd be all that upset to see Judge Macrae swinging alongside him...

Racial Quotas Watch

On Sunday I wrote about Vivienne Westwood's desire to force fashion magazines to put a certain percentage of non-white models on their front covers. As I wrote at the time, I thought that this was a particularly bad idea, particularly since there was not even any actual evidence to establish that widespread discrimination was taking place. However, Westwood's authoritarian demands were positively benign, when compared with recent comments by Britain's only black High Court judge:

Mrs Justice Dobbs also raised the idea of quotas to increase the numbers of women and non-white judges. She challenged the Judicial Appointments Commission - which believes that quotas would undermine the principle that judges are appointed on merit - by arguing that merit would not be an issue if there were enough good candidates from the ethnic minorities.

Of course, there is nothing to suggest that the introduction of quotas would have the effect of increasing the number of good non-white or female candidates. Rather it would have the effect of artificially increasing the number of successful non-white or female candidates, which is a very different thing altogether.

I am not aware that Mrs Justice Dobbs has alleged that any discrimination against non-white and female candidates is occurring during the appointments process. Certainly she does not appear to have produced any evidence of discrimination. As such, it can only be inferred that the reason non-white/female applicants are not being appointed in large numbers to the High Court bench is that, for one reason or another, an impartial appointments commission is deeming them to be inferior to other candidates. On this basis, it would appear that Dobbs's proposals would result in the appointment of judges who at present are being turned down as inferior candidates, while superior candidates were rejected, for no reason other than that they were white men. Clearly, this would have far more significance than simply turning down a would-be Vogue cover girl for being white. The notion of inferior candidates sitting on the bench as a result of racial quotas has profound implications for the administration of justice. Justice requires that the best candidates be appointed as judges. It is questionable whether this is what happens at the moment, but it is patently obvious that this is not what will happen if Mrs Justice Dobbs has her way, and, as such, it is to be hoped that her proposals will be strongly resisted.