We apply robust quality assurance checks throughout every stage of the selection process to ensure fairness and prevent bias. Selection exercise materials are developed with independent expert advice and are reviewed throughout their development for potential unfairness. Each exercise is overseen by a JAC Commissioner (‘the Assigned Commissioner’), materials are reviewed by staff and the JAC Advisory Group (made up of judges, practitioners and specialists), and all assessments are tested with mock candidates to refine content and timing. 
From time to time, we have also asked independent experts to review parts of our selection process. 

We work with partners across the legal sector to deliver outreach initiatives and events to encourage eligible candidates to apply for judicial roles and provide them with the information and support required to make a strong application. The judiciary supports our outreach for specific selection exercises by providing judges to speak to prospective candidates about what the role involves.  
The judiciary also provides support to our Targeted Outreach programme by providing judicial members to support candidates on the Judicial Guide Scheme. 
The judiciary supports our exercise delivery activities by providing judicial members to draft selection materials used to assess candidates and to sit on selection exercise panels.  

Panel members make sure all assessments are merit-based, are carried out fairly and in line with JAC policies.  
All selection panels are made up of a judicial member, and at least one lay panel member (someone who is not a legal professional). As a rule, all panels are chaired by lay members. 
Lay panel members help assess and recommend people for important judicial roles, many of which are for life. The lay role is an important role that helps keep the justice system in England and Wales fair, trusted and high quality. 
You can read more about the role of panel members and the importance of lay panel members in the selection process. 

Candidates are asked to nominate two ‘independent assessors’ as part of their application.  
Once nominated, we approach the assessors, sending them an assessment template to complete. The evidence provided by independent assessors is considered by the selection panels, either at the shortlisting stage or at selection day, and finally the Selection and Character Committee (SCC) when it comes to make recommendations for appointment.  

The law requires us to consult a ‘statutory consultee’ before making a recommendation for appointment. Statutory consultation is undertaken unless our Chair and the Appropriate Authority (the Lord Chancellor, Lady Chief Justice or Senior President of Tribunals) agree in advance to waive it. A statutory consultee must be a person who has held the office for which a selection is to be made, or who has other relevant experience. The judiciary deliver this element of the selection process by providing statutory consultation feedback (if applicable).  

The members of the commission have the corporate responsibility for ensuring that we fulfil our statutory duties. The chair must always be a lay member, and the commission is made of lay, judicial, and professional members.  
The final decision about recommendations for appointment is made by the members of the commission, sitting as the Selection and Character Committee (SCC).  

As part of each step of the process, candidates’ evidence will be given a grade: 
A = outstanding evidence of the skill and ability 
B = strong evidence of the skill and ability 
C = sufficient evidence of the skill and ability 
D = insufficient evidence of the skill and ability 
At the end of each stage the selection panel will consider all the available evidence, including evidence provided in independent assessments, and candidates will be given a single overall band using a similar A to D scale. This will be used to determine the order of merit and who should be recommended. 

To successfully apply for a judicial role, candidates must be of ‘good character’. That is because we have a statutory duty only to recommend candidates of good character. Character issues are considered as part of the selection process, in accordance with our good character guidance. 
We conduct checks with the relevant professional bodies in order to help decide whether a candidate is of good character. Financial, criminal and professional background checks are carried out with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Bar Standards Board (BSB), Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office (ACRO), Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) Regulation, Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVA) Register, and other bodies as appropriate. We have service level agreements with most of the professional bodies, and the timescale for each body varies. If a candidate who is likely to be recommended is an existing judicial office holder, the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office (JCIO) is asked to check whether there are complaints or pending investigations against them.  

After selection days, we consult with the relevant professional bodies to check whether there are any matters that will need to be considered by the SCC.  

At a meeting of the SCC, Commissioners make the final decision on which candidates to recommend for appointment to the Appropriate Authority. 
In doing so, the SCC consider those candidates that selection panels have assessed as best meeting the requirements of the role, in order of merit, having been provided with information gathered on those individuals during the whole process. The SCC uses the panel’s assessments to guide them, and, where appropriate, considers statutory consultation feedback. The SCC also considers the results of character checks alongside candidate declarations.