ABSTRACT
Of the three areas examined in this work it is the appointments process which has been subject to the greatest pressure for change as a result of the effects of expansion and the growth of judicial activism. The increase in the numbers of judges has meant that the informal appointments system which could operate when the judiciary was a small institution in which the Lord Chancellor knew personally or by reputation every appointee has become unworkable. By necessity, it has had to be replaced by a more professional and structured process. At the same time, the growth in judicial power has drawn public attention to the political importance of the appointments process. As the functions of the judiciary have moved closer to those of the other branches of government claims that there should be more similarity in their selection methods have grown stronger (Bell, 1983, p. 269). Recent constitutional reforms designed to increase the representativeness of the political process, such as Scottish and Welsh devolution and restructuring of the House of Lords, have further highlighted the undemocratic nature of the judicial appointments process. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights adds a new dimension to this process. The expectation that judges will shortly be called upon to decide on a range of social and political questions previously outside their remit has turned people's attention to the question of who judges are and how they are appointed. In 1997, when Lord Irvine gave evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee on the work of his department, he stated that there was no work to which he devoted more attention than the 'vexed question' of judicial appointments. 1
In the light of these developments, the need to increase openness and accountability in the appointments process, whilst at the same time maintaining a high degree of judicial independence has been the driving forces behind a number of recent changes to the system. The experience of many other common law countries including the US, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia as well as the civil law jurisdictions in
continental Europe, suggests that as the power of the judges grows the pressure for structural change to the appointments process increases (East, 1995). In addition, the growing policy-making role of the judiciary raises questions about the selection criteria which should be applied in order to identify judicial candidates who are fitted for their new and more diverse roles. When the Home Affairs Select Committee examined the judicial appointments process in 1996 it acknowledged this need: 'The kind of judges that are chosen in future will have to reflect the new role which society expects the judicial system to play'.2 This chapter examines the changes which have taken place, and those which are likely to be introduced in the judicial appointments process as a result of these pressures.
