Executive summary

Background (Back to top)

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers. The JAC has a statutory duty to 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. It also has a statutory duty to encourage diverse candidates from a wide field. It is recognised by the JAC that having a diverse range of individuals serving in judicial posts is important.

JAC selection processes are unique for multiple reasons. There are often very high candidate volumes for small numbers of vacancies in prominent positions. The selection processes used vary across selection exercises, but all are subject to rigorous checks and balances. While the JAC is responsible for making recommendations for the appointment of judges across England and Wales, it does not make the final decision on who is appointed or have any jurisdiction over individuals once they are in the role.

The JAC expressed an interest in understanding the latest research and best practice in supporting neurodivergent candidates through selection processes, so that this can be practically applied within their context. The JAC has been proactive in identifying neuroinclusive selection as a topic to explore further as it pertains to their activities; this reflects a broader trend in this topic receiving more attention across the selection and assessment literature, and in other recruitment contexts.

Research methodology (Back to top)

In December 2024, Work Psychology Group (WPG) were commissioned to conduct an independent review of the recruitment practices used by the JAC, with a particular focus on the alignment between current practices and different perspectives concerning neuroinclusive recruitment. The JAC has retained an ongoing contract with WPG for their expertise in recruitment best practice. The research questions defined for the project were:

• What can be done to make the application form easier for neurodivergent candidates to complete?
• Is there more that can be done to support neurodivergent candidates in the qualifying tests (in addition to, or rather than, providing additional time)?
• What best practice is there to support neurodivergent candidates during the selection days?
• What types of reasonable adjustments should the JAC offer to neurodivergent candidates, and what is the most appropriate way to deal with these requests?

Evidence was gathered from multiple sources during the research project and referenced in creation of the final conclusions and recommendations, including a comprehensive literature review, interviews with candidates, existing judicial office holders and stakeholders, a desk review of selection exercise materials, alongside a JAC-led survey of operational staff and JAC lay panel members.

Research findings (Back to top)

The research showed there were many examples of good practice with regards to neuroinclusive selection that the JAC already has in place. Discussions with candidates and JAC staff members illustrated the JAC’s positive use of a candidate-led approach when discussing reasonable requirements at all stages of selection, rather than taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach. There was a clear awareness that the provision of reasonable adjustments needs to be balanced against the need to provide a fair, robust recruitment process for all candidates. It also became apparent that there was opportunity to enhance clarity around the policy and practice of implementing reasonable adjustments.

The researchers identified an obvious appetite within the JAC to commit to continuous improvements, which came through during interactions with stakeholders. Further, researchers noted where improvements identified within this research are already within scope of other JAC work programmes. This research identified 17 specific recommendations, distributed across selection stages, which could support continuous improvements as regards the inclusivity of JAC selection processes for neurodivergent candidates.

Summary of findings and report recommendations (Back to top)

The 17 recommendations suggested to inform ongoing improvements for neurodivergent candidates are summarised below. They are not prescriptive and will be interpreted in a way which supports fair recruitment for all candidates. Please note, several of the recommendations below already align with JAC work programmes currently in progress.

Pre-application stage (1 recommendation)

Researchers noted good evidence of a neuroinclusive approach to recruitment from the earliest point. The JAC provide an information page which has detailed information about the relevant roles and recruitment exercises, and include eligibility criteria for the role, helping reduce ambiguity and clarify role requirements for candidates. The provision of case studies was deemed a useful method to provide candidates with insight into the role in question, supported by informative outreach events.

Prospective candidates are made aware of the JAC’s approach to reasonable adjustments as early as possible when deciding whether to apply for a role. The current reasonable adjustments webpage clearly explains that reasonable adjustments should be requested early and can be discussed for any stage in the selection process.

Researchers noted that neurodivergent candidates may benefit from a wider range of non-text materials. The JAC’s website is currently undergoing a rebuild, which is likely to improve accessibility.

Researchers also noted that some candidates might be less familiar with reasonable adjustments in general and therefore may be less clear what adjustments they could discuss with, or request from, the JAC.

Application form stage (4 recommendations)

Researchers concluded that interviewees largely felt positive or neutral about the completion of the majority of the JAC application form, in line with the broader perspective of all JAC candidates. Most felt the application forms were straightforward to complete or did not raise any challenges with them. Candidates at this stage are reminded of the information on the reasonable adjustments process.

The self-assessment aspect of the application form generated the most feedback from candidates. Researchers noted that there is a substantial amount of existing guidance available to candidates to explain what is required of candidates as regards to evidence. They did however suggest areas where more clarification could help as to what constitutes good quality evidence.

Researchers noted that it is positive that many of the elements included in the full application form require minimal written input from candidates. In addition, candidates have two weeks to complete the self-assessment form, and it is not done under timed conditions. One recommendation noted under this theme related to the impact of self-assessment word counts limits on some candidates.

Finally, regarding accessibility, researchers noted that the application form platform was compliant with Government Digital Service accessibility requirements, and that an ongoing programme of work is focusing on standardising web-forms currently provided through the JAC website. The final recommendation here focuses on increased sharing of accessibility functionality with candidates.

Qualifying test stage (9 recommendations)

Researchers determined that this was the stage of JAC selection where there was a bigger discrepancy between the evidence on psychometric/online tests for neurodivergent candidates, and interviewee perceptions. The existing assessment and selection evidence provides support for use of psychometric tests in recruitment as they can be used at scale, with reasonable adjustments if required, to provide a standardised measure of attributes of interest in a fair way with minimal or no group differences observed between neurodivergent and neurotypical candidates.

Further, researchers noted that literature generally reports that all candidates tend to prefer interviews and job sample tests over psychometric assessments. Recognition of this broader perspective, coupled with the competitive nature of many JAC exercises where sifting is critical to manage large numbers of candidates in a standardised manner, may go some way to explaining perceptions about this particular stage.

Researchers identified a large amount of good practice for qualifying tests in the process. Content for all JAC qualifying tests are developed by judges from the relevant business area and all content goes through a rigorous, multi-stage quality assurance process involving lay Commissioners and lay panel members. The desk review of content showed it was inclusive in nature and language used reflected the requirements of the role as regards familiarity with legal language. Scoring of qualifying tests is anchored to the role competencies, which aligns with recommendations for best practice design of assessments. Content is tested using mock assessments before it is used in live selection exercises.

Researchers agreed it was positive to see that the JAC takes a candidate-led approach in agreeing reasonable adjustments at this stage. Extra time as a reasonable adjustment is provided across all three qualifying tests where appropriate, but a range of further reasonable adjustments are made which interviewees reflected positively on e.g. adjustments to tests and ability to take a break. Researcher recommendations for ongoing provision in this space have been noted below.

Researchers noted that candidates are provided with a substantial amount of guidance that helps with preparation for the qualifying tests. Guidance is also provided concerning the online functionality of the platforms, as are practice test tools for the Situational Judgement Test and Critical Analysis Test. Researchers felt that there may be opportunities to further promote the resources available, and to include a Scenario Test practice tool.

No issues regarding platform accessibility for the Situational Judgement Test or Critical Analysis Test were raised by candidates. One improvement was suggested by researchers regarding the functionality of the platform for the Scenario Test. One further recommendation came from the desk review.

Selection day stage (3 recommendations)

Researchers found that discussions of this stage generated positive interviewee perceptions regarding neuroinclusivity, design, and relevance to the role. While some of this may be due to a global candidate preference for these types of methods, many examples of good practice supporting neuroinclusive recruitment were identified by researchers during review of this stage. It was identified that significant efforts have been made by the JAC to ensure that selection day content and format is inclusive, utilising design briefs for writers and a rigorous review process for content.

Researchers noted that JAC selection panels are comprised of lay and judicial panellists, all of whom receive training on how to conduct selection processes in a fair manner. Calibration and moderation processes are used by the JAC to support standardisation.

While the majority of the selection day content review was aligned with a neuroinclusive recruitment process, the desk review identified two opportunities where researchers felt that further refinements could respond to specific points raised by neurodivergent candidates.

With respect to delivery format, a range of views were shared as to the potential advantages and disadvantages of both in-person and remote selection days. JAC processes acknowledge that the two formats might create different challenges in different ways for candidates. The format of the selection day is included in the information page available throughout the exercise and candidates have the opportunity to request reasonable adjustments at the selection day stage. Efforts are made to ensure that both face to face and remote selection days are conducted in a distraction-free environment.

Interviewees appreciated that they were provided with preparatory materials in advance of their selection day. They also provided positive feedback regarding their interactions with JAC staff on selection days, including both panellists and operational team members. The desk review also showed that panellists are provided with lots of guidance to support fair assessment. Survey respondents noted that additional guidance on strategies for interacting with neurodivergent candidates, and more knowledge about reasonable adjustments, would add to their knowledge.

JAC staff survey respondents and candidates listed a range of reasonable adjustments that have been implemented for neurodivergent candidates, which were agreed in a candidate-led manner. Lay and judicial panellists involved in selection days also felt supported to accommodate reasonable adjustments when they were required. Researchers found that candidates were positive about reasonable adjustments received and the way in which these had been managed by the JAC.

JAC response (Back to top)

We would like to extend our thanks to all who contributed their time and insights to inform this research and to thank Work Psychology Group for conducting this review. The insights used to inform this research has provided valuable evidence that will inform ongoing enhancements to our selection practices and support the JAC’s commitment to continuous improvement.

Key findings (Back to top)

The research highlighted several examples of good practice already embedded in JAC processes, including our candidate-led approach when discussing reasonable adjustments and our commitment to avoiding a ‘one size fits all’ model.

It also acknowledged the need to balance individual adjustments with the integrity and fairness of the overall selection process.

17 recommendations were identified for consideration across all stages of selection to further enhance our approach. These will guide our ongoing efforts to enhance the inclusivity of our recruitment practices for neurodivergent candidates.

Next steps (Back to top)

A working group has been established to oversee the implementation of these recommendations, supporting the organisation’s commitment to continuous improvement.

The following changes have already been agreed:

• there will be an increase in the wordcount for legal selection exercises and for senior appointment and leadership selection exercises- this initiative was already underway owing to the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework review.
• work on the JAC platform has included timer alerts for all online tests
• JAC recruitment materials- including guidance, training, drafting and briefing documents- have been updated to reflect diversity considerations, recognising that candidates may demonstrate skills and abilities in a variety of ways. For example, we have removed any reference to eye contact being considered as a positive indicator in marking schemes.

Work is also underway to consider a number of recommendations, including:

• the provision of example responses for each competency/ skills and abilities with a focus on illustrating how these responses would be assessed
• standardising self-assessment examples, to ensure consistency in style and format
• reviewing assessor guidance to clarify the relevance of writing style and expression in the marking process. 
• reviewing existing data and exploring ways to gather more targeted feedback from neurodivergent candidates on their experience of mock assessments

Actions for further consideration (Back to top)

Work will begin to further consider the following in 2026:

• reviewing the information provided to candidates to explain reasonable adjustments
• providing additional guidance to candidates about accessibility functionality available when completing the self-assessment form
• ensuring that adjustments relating to provision of reading or preparatory materials can be implemented consistently. 
• ensure that communication materials clearly explain adjustments available to candidates that can be implemented independently from the JAC
• continue the dialogue with neurodivergent candidates to gather additional feedback that relates to candidate experiences of reasonable adjustments
• further enhancing the JAC digital platform to ensure ongoing compliance with accessibility best practice
• consider the provision of online tests on weekends

Further updates on progress will be provided through the JAC Diversity Updates in 2026.