New appointees to the High Court bench are, it turns out, embarrassingly white, male, public-schooly and barristerial. I wish I could argue that true appointment on merit may or may not result in more black and women appointees, more solicitors, etc. – so why expect that it must do so?
But my heart’s not in it; I think this is about old, old attitudes proving very hard to root out.
Mr Gardner,
Evidence?
You may be right, but there are other factors which may creep into this debate – self-selction for whatever reasons, cultural nuances, etc. The list of possible causes is lengthy. Perhaps some decent research might be useful – if one could extract information from the closed shop.
However, one must also consider that English (and Scottish) laws are based upon an interesting melange of religious and cultural influences. There’s a counterpoint here in the growing influence of group interests – such as the Muslim community – for example. One might also reflect on the effects on the legal systems and legislation of the influxes of various immigrant groups – Huguenots, Jews, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Poles and so on.
The Bench – public school, barristerial, white male and oxbridge?? What a SURPRISE! I think I may have a heart attack of surprise and die, already……
Is it also just possible that this is simply not even remotely an issue at all?
Those being appointed NOW would have been at law school 25-30 years ago. We are therefore looking at the ethnic mix of top flight law graduates in 1978.
This should have been known about for 25-30 years and should not therefore be any sort of a surprise.
The real question is: what is the mix of law school intakes now?
If that is disproportionately public school, white male then you might have a point.
I submit that a disproportionately high number of Oxbridge grads is a GOOD sign as these grads are generally – though not always, but remember we are looking at averages here – of a higher calibre. Isn’t that what a meritocracy is about?