In April 2009, we became a producer of official statistics under the Statistics and Registration Services Act 2007.
This means that we must publish statistics that inform the public about social and economic matters, and which could assist in the development and evaluation of public policy.
Review of statistical methodology
A review of aspects of the methodology used within the published JAC statistics was carried out by Ministry of Justice statisticians, with the results published in February 2020: Methodology review report: Statistical reporting from a diversity perspective.
Frequency of publication
Following a consultation 2015, the publication of our official statistics became annual.
JAC Official Statistics
Combined Statistics
In September 2020, the Judicial Diversity Forum published the Combined Statistical Report for the first time, bringing together data on the diversity of the judiciary, judicial appointments and from the relevant professional bodies (the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx)). JDF members have committed to publishing the Combined Statistical Report annually, along with an accompanying narrative to give more context.
The reports provide a picture not only of the diversity of today’s judiciary, but also of the process by which judges are recruited and the diversity of the pool from which much of that judiciary is drawn – the legal professions.
Later in the autumn, the JDF will publish a joint action plan outlining the wider activities JDF members are undertaking to support and improve judicial diversity. Read more about the work of the JDF.
2021 (combined statistics)
2020 (combined statistics)
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Note: statistics published prior to 9 February 2010 do not qualify as Official Statistics. The JAC published the results of its selection exercises, presenting the progress of candidates broken down by gender, ethnicity, disability and professional background in its annual report and accounts. Where possible results were published for individual exercises, but sometimes the small number of appointments meant this would compromise candidate confidentiality. In those cases, a number of similar exercises were aggregated. The results included information on the ‘eligible pool’ – the number of people who met the job-specific minimum entry requirements. This figure was also broken down wherever possible to also show its diversity composition.
Selection exercise statistics
You can view information on judicial recommendations from the last 12 months here: selection exercises completed in the last year
