These are exciting times for those interested in the Judicial and Queen’s Counsel appointments processes. We have recently seen proposals for a revised Silk system and the Constitutional Reform Bill – currently wending its way through Parliament - presents a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform public confidence in the judiciary and open up the system.

I chair the current Commission for Judicial Appointments, an independent Government watchdog that scrutinises the appointments process and investigates complaints about it. We reviewed the Silk 2003 competition and found the system opaque, inconsistent and seriously lacking quality control and transparency. It was not a system that demonstrably selected the best advocates and it failed to promote diversity.

We are delighted that proposals for the new Silk scheme follows the principles that we set out in the light of our analysis of the weaknesses of the previous scheme. We particularly welcome steps to develop a competency framework setting out what is required to be appointed as Queen’s Counsel, the replacement of ‘secret soundings’ with structured references, the inclusion of an interview in the selection process and the creation of an independent panel, with significant Human Resources and Equal Opportunities experience, to assess applications. Although there is much to discuss about the details of the new scheme, we are optimistic that it will be a radical and much welcome reform - a huge step forward.

For judicial appointments the case for the creation of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), with responsibility for selecting candidates, is overwhelming. There is no question, at least in my mind, that the civil servants managing the current appointments process treat what is undeniably a difficult and demanding job with the utmost seriousness. We have come a long way from the days when judicial appointments seemed to emerge from the Lord Chancellor’s apartments as columns of white smoke against the London skyline. Much of this results from a combination of a commitment to change within the Department and the existence of an independent watchdog ready both to praise and criticise where appropriate.

Nonetheless, the lack of transparency as to how decisions are ultimately reached, and the continued substantial involvement of politicians in the process, creates a perception of patronage, which is of itself extremely damaging. It both discourages some first rate candidates from putting their names forward and casts a shadow over the appointment of those that do emerge successful.

The new JAC should inspire real confidence by taking the process outside the confines of Government and the Civil Service, and by drawing upon the expertise of those used to making senior appointments in other comparable walks of life. We hope that the fact that the JAC Chair, and a significant proportion of JAC members, will come from outside the legal profession will send an unmistakable message that the judiciary is open to applications from people who do not consider themselves as fitting the traditional mould.

We have set out our views before as to the structure most likely to achieve real reform. We are disappointed that the Government has not accepted all of them. We remain convinced, in particular, that there is a need for an ongoing independent audit function to ensure that the new body delivers the modernising changes to which the Government has said it is committed. We hope that a once in a lifetime opportunity to shape the appointments process in such a way as to deliver a higher calibre and more diverse judiciary will not be lost. Time will tell.

It is, however, now time to look ahead. It is not for us to specify how the new JAC will re-engineer the process, but we would like to make a contribution to their work:

First, the starting point of any competition must be that candidates are measured against criteria or competencies that reflect the needs of the post. The process should be checked to identify and remove any instances of unwarranted indirect discrimination. Judicial input is essential in drawing up criteria or competencies - judges are, after all, best placed to know what is needed to be a judge. This part of the process is also likely to benefit from outsiders’ views, not least to avoid the danger of ‘social cloning’.

Second, all candidates should submit an application. There should be scope for ‘headhunting’, whereby the senior judiciary identify potentially well-qualified candidates who can then be encouraged to apply. All candidates must, however, be considered on the same basis. This means that all candidates must complete an application form, provide a self-assessment against the criteria and identify referees who are able to provide evidence as to their suitability for office.

Third, the decision making process should then consider all candidates on the same basis, taking account of a range of different sources of information. These may include self-assessment, appraisal and evidence from assessment centres or interviews. The weight given to each should be clearly recorded.

Fourth, we remain strongly of the view that automatic consultation should end. It should be replaced by a system of references that are closely related to the criteria or competencies for the post. These need to be subject to rigid quality control and expert analysis as part of the decision making process. The aim would be to ensure that all relevant knowledge about candidates’ suitability for office is made available to those assessing applications in a structured and robust way.

Fifth, the practice of seeking the views of the senior judiciary at the end of the process should end. We appreciate that there is a need to safeguard against rogue decisions and the appointment of ‘bad apples’, but effectively maintaining a ‘judicial veto’ would feed the perceptions of those who believe that appointments are in the gift of the senior judiciary. An appointments process which includes judicial expertise and is designed to gauge relevant evidence would render such a stage redundant.

Finally, the process must retain the principle of selection on merit. Presumably no one would dispute that this means appointing the candidate best suited for the job. It is necessary to unpick what this means.

The starting point is that candidates appointed to judicial office should be those best qualified to meet the needs of the position. Generally the qualities needed to hold judicial office include legal knowledge, judgement, integrity, intellect, sensitivity, shrewdness, practical knowledge, communication and listening skills, the capacity to think logically and independently, and the ability to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice. We have therefore been disappointed in previous competitions to see examples where decisions have been influenced by perceptions of the ‘right sort’ of people who should hold judicial office. It is essential that the new appointments process overcomes the possibility that people will tend to see ‘merit’ only in colleagues who are like themselves.

For most senior positions, and certainly for judicial posts, selection panels usually need to consider a pool of candidates. Occasionally one may stand out as clearly the best. More commonly, as we saw in our review of the 2003 High Court competition, the process results in a shorter list of eminently appointable candidates. Each is different, but each meets the requirements of the post. At this point it is necessary to consider which attributes of individuals are most important for each particular post. This may include the different perspectives and insights offered by people of different genders and mixed social and ethnic backgrounds, which may improve the overall quality of judicial decision making, not least by contributing a wider understanding of the issues facing Court users.

A key challenge for the new Commission is to remove the elements in the current system that work against greater diversity and which feed perceptions that the system is loaded against minority practitioners. We believe that an open, demonstrably fair and accountable system, re-engineered along the lines I have outlined, would be a major step forward. We appreciate that there has been a welcome increase in women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds appointed to judicial office in recent years but the perception, and the reality, is that the judiciary is still overwhelmingly made up of middle aged, white Caucasian males. We doubt whether – left to its own devices - ‘trickle up’ will ever deliver a sufficiently diverse judiciary.

In addition, Government and the legal profession need to address any issues that might preclude groups of candidates from reaching a position where they feel able to apply.

None of this is rocket science - it just represents good practice in recruitment. Our recommendations are designed to do no more than ensure a level playing field and that knowledge which undoubtedly exists about candidates’ suitability for office is properly collected and considered. Nevertheless, I hope that they will enable us, in ten years or so, to look back upon the Constitutional Reform Bill and its associated discussions as a turning point that has vastly improved both the judicial appointments process and confidence in a more diverse and higher calibre judiciary.

Sir Colin Campbell is Her Majesty’s First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments and the Vice-Chancellor of Nottingham University.