Equal access for all: reasonable adjustments at the JAC

“Our judiciary is stronger when all of us can contribute as we are, not despite our differences, but with them.”

That’s how Judge Michelle Brewer, a Judge of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), describes what inclusion means to her. It speaks directly to this year’s theme for National Inclusion Week (14–20 September): build trust, navigate change.

Trust and change sit at the heart of what inclusion means in practice. Not just as a principle we aspire to, but as something people experience day to day. The best way to understand inclusion in practice is through the perspectives of those who live it.

Hearing from the judiciary

Judge Michelle Brewer was diagnosed with ADHD in midlife. That diagnosis prompted her own process of navigating change, understanding what she needed and how to ask for it:

“I am a judge with AuDHD¹, ADHD with some autistic (mainly sensory) traits and like many who receive a diagnosis in midlife, it brought both clarity and reflection. It did not change my standards; it changed how I meet them.

“It also prompted me to reflect on traits that have long supported my professional life. Hyperfocused attention, lateral thinking and curiosity in problem-solving served me well at the Bar and continue to serve me as a judge. These strengths often sit alongside the challenges, and it is important that we move beyond narrow preconceptions of what labels mean.”

Judge Brewer is clear that there’s no single neurodivergent experience:

“No two neurodivergent people will present in the same way, and recognising the diversity within neurodiversity is central to true inclusion.”

1. The term AuDHD helps people describe their experience of having both autistic and ADHD traits.

Why reasonable adjustments matter

At the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), inclusion is something we work to embed into every stage of how we select candidates for judicial roles across England and Wales. Reasonable adjustments are one of the most important ways we do this. 

We want to make sure talented people from all backgrounds, including those with disabilities or long-term health conditions, can participate fully and fairly in the selection process.

Reasonable adjustments are how we level that playing field. They are not an unfair advantage or an exception to the rules. They are part of what it means to run a genuinely fair selection process, and part of building the trust that candidates need to fully demonstrate their skills and abilities.

That principle holds true throughout a judicial career, not just during the selection process. Judge Brewer has found practical, everyday adjustments not only useful for her judicial role, but for others in the room too: “Short, well-timed breaks help, and in my experience, they enhance the clarity and efficiency of submissions for everyone.”

What reasonable adjustments we offer

When candidates begin their application, they are asked at the outset whether they need any adjustments at any stage of the process.

There’s a free text box in the application form where candidates can describe the adjustments they may need in as much detail as they like. We want to hear from people in their own words, because no two people’s experiences are the same.

The kinds of adjustments we can make include:

• extra time for online tests and activities
• providing materials in a larger font size, in Braille, on coloured paper, or in different colour contrasts
• ensuring venues are fully accessible for wheelchair users or assistance dogs
• arranging a sign language interpreter or palantypist
• providing accessible parking
• arranging a preparatory visit to a venue so a candidate can check the layout, acoustics, and hearing loops in advance

This is not an exhaustive list we encourage every candidate to tell us what they need.

Candidates can also contact the selection exercise team directly at any stage to request an adjustment. We encourage people to get in touch as early as possible so we have time to put the right arrangements in place. We want this to feel like a genuine dialogue, not a bureaucratic hurdle: the team will discuss your needs, propose an adjustment, and confirm everything in writing before the relevant selection activity takes place.

Reasonable adjustments after selection

We’re also transparent about where our role ends. We don’t share information about your reasonable adjustments with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service or the Judicial Office. So once appointed, you’ll need to raise any ongoing needs with them directly. We’ll make sure you know exactly who to contact before your role begins.

Reviewing our approach to reasonable adjustments

Last year, we commissioned research into neuroinclusive recruitment and published the findings, which highlighted strong existing practice alongside opportunities for further improvement. In light of this, we’ve begun reviewing our reasonable adjustments policy to further strengthen the accessibility of the selection process.

We have also conducted analysis of information declared by disabled candidates. This will help us to better understand the experiences, success rates and barriers faced by candidates with different disabilities.

Our commitment to inclusion

Inclusion means removing the barriers that prevent talented people from showing what they can do. As Judge Brewer puts it:

“It’s not about expecting anyone to reveal more than they wish; it is about creating conditions where they do not have to hide.”

Building trust and navigating change go hand in hand. Candidates need to trust that raising a concern or requesting an adjustment won’t count against them and we must keep evolving our processes to meet those concerns and requests as best we can.

This National Inclusion Week, we want every candidate who has considered applying for a judicial role and perhaps wondered whether the process would work for them, to know that we are here to help.

Learn more about reasonable adjustments during the JAC selection process.

---