Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the adequacy of the legal advice available to people making an asylum claim.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, all immigration advisers must be registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) or be regulated by a Designated Qualifying Regulator (DQR). The OISC and the DQRs are responsible for ensuring immigration advisers are fit, competent, and act in their clients’ best interests.
The DQRs include legal services representative bodies who designate regulatory responsibilities to legal services regulators. Legal services regulation is independent of Government and the relevant regulators are responsible for ensuring quality and standards for providers of legal advice.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is a DQR and responsible for the regulation of solicitors and ensuring that all solicitors meet required standards. In November 2022, the SRA published a thematic review of immigration and asylum services as well as updated immigration guidance to help solicitors understand their obligations when providing immigration advice. The guidance is available here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/immigration-services/guidance-and-support/.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Senior Coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the Plymouth mass shooting, when she plans to (a) put in place the recommended firearms licensing training for Crown Court judges and (b) ensure that only judges who have undergone this training are authorised to hear appeals against licensing decisions under section 44 of the Firearms Act 1968.
Answered by Mike Freer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
To preserve the independence of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice, Senior President of Tribunals and Chief Coroner have statutory responsibility for judicial training, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and Coroners and Justice Act 2009 respectively. These responsibilities are exercised through the Judicial College.
The Judicial College regularly reviews its training offer to ensure that all judicial office holders receive up-to-date and high-quality training. The judiciary is responsible for determining which judges hear appeals against licensing decisions.
The Lord Chief Justice’s response to the Prevention of Future Deaths Report is publicly available and can be accessed here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-0085-Response-from-Lord-Chief-Justice-of-England-and-Wales-.pdf.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many substantive complaints of unfairness in the making of judicial appointments have been upheld by the Judicial Appointments Commission under its own internal procedures; and what remedy has been offered and provided in each such case.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
JAC complaints are not categorised by reference to claims of unfairness. All internal complaints upheld since 2014-15 are set out below.
Year | Complaints Upheld | Remedy |
2020-21 | 3 Partially Upheld | 3 Apologies Issues |
2019-20 | 0 | N/A |
2018-19 | 3 Upheld | 3 re-admitted to next stage of exercise (all Selection Day) |
2017-18 | 4 Upheld | 2 re-admitted to next stage of exercise, 1 retrospective adjustment applied, 1 apology |
2016-17 | 1 Upheld | Invited to Selection Day (Complainant Holiday originally clashed) |
2015-16 | 1 Upheld | 1 re-admitted to next stage of process |
2014-15 | 0 | N/A |
Totals | 9 Upheld |
|
| 3 Partially Upheld |
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) Employment Tribunal and (b) other proceedings have been brought against the (i) judiciary, (ii) his Department, (iii) HM Courts and Tribunals Service and (iv) Judicial Conduct Investigations Office by (A) other judges and (B) his Department since 2015; and if he will publish the (1) outcome and (2) status of each of those proceedings.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the (a) ethnicity and (b) gender was of the judges referred (i) informally and (ii) formally for disciplinary action since 2015; and what the (A) ethnicity and (B) gender was of the complainant in each of those cases.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not record the diversity profile of complainants, or of judges who are subject to disciplinary action.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what bullying, harassment and anti-discrimination policies apply to members of the Judiciary; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of training offered in respect of that policy; and whether such training is provided to all (a) full-time and (b) part-time office holders.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
There are three related Judicial Grievance policies which cover complaints of bullying, harassment and/or discrimination, systemic complaints and complaints of broader wrongdoing. The grievance policies provide a framework for raising complaints formally or informally. These apply to all judicial office holders; salaried and fee-paid including the magistracy. In addition, the Judicial Guide to Conduct offers assistance to judges, coroners and magistrates about their conduct through the provision of a set of core principles.
The Lord Chief Justice (LCJ), the Senior President of the Tribunals, and the Chief Coroner have statutory responsibility for judicial training, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and Coroners and Justice Act 2009 respectively. As judicial training is a matter for the independent judiciary, no assessment of training is undertaken by the Ministry of Justice
All new Judicial Office Holders attend courses which include sessions on Conduct and Ethics which make specific reference to the 2012 Equality and Diversity Policy for the Judiciary and the Dignity at Work statement it contains, and further training is provided for judges when they are new to leadership roles.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many complainant judges have left their judicial appointment prior to normal retirement age after issuing a grievance alleging race, sex, sexual orientation or disability discrimination in the last two years.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
There are no central records of how many complainant judges have left their judicial appointment prior to normal retirement age after issuing a grievance alleging race, sex, sexual orientation or disability discrimination. Information about judicial office holders who leave prior to retirement is not compared with grievance records.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether secret soundings are taken from leadership judges or other automatic consultees on the suitability of an individual for judicial appointment.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
Consultation with the judiciary in relation to judicial recruitment is provided for in statute.
The independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has the responsibility to run selection exercises and make recommendations to judicial posts up to and including the High Court. The JAC has a statutory duty to only select people for judicial appointment only on merit and who are of good character, in line with section 63 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
As part of the selection process, a range of shortlisting and selection day tools are used to assess candidates. The Lord Chief Justice and another person who held the office for which the candidate is applying or has relevant experience are also consulted on the applicant, in line with section 30(1) of the Judicial Appointments Regulations 2013 to ensure that candidates are of good character and have relevant capabilities for the role. Further information on the JAC’s selection process regarding the suitability of candidates for appointments is available at – https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/guidance-on-the-application-process-2/
For judges above the High Court an independent selection panel is convened as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. In line with those provisions, the commission, consisting of non-legally qualified members, judicial members and members of the JAC, will determine and apply the selection process required and will consult key officials and senior members of the judiciary on the candidates.
For appointments to the UK Supreme Court, a selection panel is convened. The panel consists of the UKSC President, a member from the JAC, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, the Northern Ireland JAC and a Senior UK Judge in line with Part 3 (11) of the UK Supreme Court Regulations 2013. The panel will determine and apply the selection process required and consult with the senior judiciary and senior officials on candidates, in line with Section 27 (1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of unconscious bias training made available to the judiciary.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Lord Chief Justice (LCJ), the Senior President of the Tribunals, and the Chief Coroner have statutory responsibility for judicial training, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and Coroners and Justice Act 2009 respectively. Training responsibilities are exercised through the Judicial College. As training is a matter for the independent judiciary, no assessment is undertaken by the Ministry of Justice.
The Judicial College is committed to ensuring that matters of diversity and inclusion, fairness and tackling bias are embedded in all its training and competence frameworks for judges and magistrates. It is a golden thread that runs through every aspect of training design, development and delivery. The Judicial College’s goal is to include the topic of bias in all induction training and to have a suite of e-learning and resources on the topic of bias which judicial trainers can integrate into their continuation training as appropriate.
Asked by: Claudia Webbe (Independent - Leicester East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to communicate the findings and recommendations of the Lammy Review to the full and part-time judiciary; and what steps his Department is taking to protect whistleblowers from discrimination and victimisation.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
Since the publication of the Lammy Review in September 2017, the Ministry of Justice has worked with Judicial Office to respond to its recommendations, which have been disseminated and widely read amongst the Judiciary. The issues raised are of continued interest and concern and remain high on the agenda.
Any Ministry of Justice employees who raise a concern using the Raising a Concern (including whistleblowing) policy will be supported and will not suffer any unfair or negative treatment as a result. Where a protected disclosure is made, the individual also has a legal entitlement to protection. Any disclosures made under this policy will be treated in a sensitive manner. Details of individuals will only be shared with those who need to know in order to investigate and progress the matter.
For the Judiciary, there are three related Judicial Grievance policies which cover complaints of bullying, harassment and/or discrimination, systemic complaints and complaints of broader wrongdoing. The grievance policies provide a framework for raising complaints formally or informally. These apply to all judicial office holders; salaried and fee-paid including the magistracy.