THE Lord Chancellor has been accused by an independent watchdog of being influenced in appointing judges by whether they had been to Oxbridge.

In one particular competition for recorders, candidates who were “male, Oxbridge-educated barristers fared disproportionately well”, according to reports from the Commission for Judicial Appointments. The commission said: “We also noticed that the Lord Chancellor’s involvement at the end of the process increased the proportion of Oxbridge-educated candidates who were appointed over and above those recommended by officials.”

It also noted that candidates known to the senior judiciary appeared “to be at an advantage”, adding that some senior judges had “attempted to overturn some of the interview panels’ conclusions”.

The report prompted a furious letter from Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, to Sir Colin Campbell, chairman of the commission. It was coupled with an angry rebuttal, with Lord Falconer denying that he was influenced by the educational background of any candidate. He said: “This is simply wrong — wrong in fact, wrong in implication, and wrong in conclusion. It is inappropriate for the commission to make such a statement.”

The Lord Chancellor, who has taken a series of initiatives to widen the pool of candidates for the judiciary, added: “It is damaging to the candidates who have been successful in such competitions. I regret its decision to do so.”

In his letter, Lord Falconer said that both the commission’s annual report published yesterday, and the original audit of the recorder appointments on the Midland Circuit in 2004-05, contained inaccurate statements. The audit report stated that, “in some of the marginal cases, the Lord Chancellor substituted his own assessment, based on less evidence and possibly irrelevant factors, for that of his officials”.

It went on to say that the reports on candidates included details about their university, college and whether they had obtained a first class degree.

Lord Falconer, who read law at Cambridge, said: “The plain implication is that I was influenced by details of which Oxbridge college they attended, and whether they obtained first class degrees. This is wrong. The candidates’ educational background played no part in the process.”

A spokesman for the commission said that it was not accusing him of being motivated by a desire to promote more Oxbridge candidates; it was simply saying that this was the effect of his involvement.

The records show that of the 30 candidates those from Oxbridge had a 63 per cent success rate compared with 25 per cent for the other candidates.

The row comes soon after the disclosure in The Times that the eight-member commission had drawn up a blistering report about the appointment of a Chancery judge, Wyn Williams, QC, to a specialist post running the Chancery court in Cardiff.

It found that the Lord Chancellor had rejected the unanimous recommendation of the interview panel and substituted his own candidate, who had no experience of Chancery work.

The commission did, however, applaud commitments made by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to work to improve the diversity of the Bench.





LEGAL BLUES

• 81 per cent of current judges went to Oxbridge, compared with 88 per cent last year
  
  
• Among barristers under 39, 82 per cent went to Oxbridge, compared with 92 per cent in 1989
  
  
• In the top “magic circle” law firms, 55 per cent of partners went to fee-paying schools compared with 68 per cent in 1989
  
  Source: Sutton Trust

Times recommends

• Oxford moves towards going private
• Poorer pupils to get elite university places
• University black hole as applicants surge