Does the Social Composition of the Judiciary Matter?

Does the social composition of the judiciary matter?

According to the articles and researches, many do say that the social composition of the judiciary does matter. Judiciary is a powerful authority whom have the enormous power to interpret the law and to implement it.^[1]Social composition includes the demographics of age brackets, self-identification of faith, gender, national background, income, and political affiliation and many more ‘society-related’ issue. Social composition of the judiciary in other word it means that what types of race, gender, age of people which consist in the judiciary. Different individual with different background may interpret the law different, which is what we are going to look into it.

As stated by the committee of the House of Lords, only 1 in 20 judges is non-white and fewer than 1 in 4 is female.^[2] Different individual may interpret the law differently, which is why the composition of the judiciary is crucial. Different perspectives can be brought by a more diverse judiciary and the diversity in a judiciary can bear on the development of the law and to the concept of justice itself.^[3]

Under the Human Rights Act 1998 article 6, everyone has the right to have a fair trial. A fair trial is where the interpretation of law is implemented after a much in-depth discussion in every aspect and had chosen the best decision. Having the judgments judged by the majority which consist mostly male and white people does not give a fair judgment. Female and black judges or judges with all kinds of religion can contribute to a more overall judgment which will make the judgment fairer.

The case of Hasanali Khoja v the Metropolitan Police and East African v United Kingdom 1983 had shown clear evidence that the lack of diversity in the judiciary can cause racial or religious discrimination.^[4] Khoja’s lawyer claimed that the decision of the judge did not uphold the claimant’s freedom of expression^[5] and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.^[6] Khoja’s employers, by law, have to suit his choice of not cooking the pork because of his religion but then they were not punished for infringing Khoja’s right.^[7] East African’s case is where the claimant’s rights is violated due to different treatment (discrimination on race) and torture which violated article 3 of the Human Rights Act. Article 5,8 and 14 are also violated in this case.^[8]

Also, the case of Andrea Madarassy v Nomura International had shown that if the judge who judged the case is a female judge, then the chance of Andrea winning the case is higher. This case talked about the claimant complaining about the unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, victimization and contravention of the Equal Pay Act. Yet the court held that the Nomura International had not discriminated Andrea but according to Aurura press archive, Mrs. Andrea is not the only woman to have complained of unfair treatment by Nomura. If, however, the cases were heard by a female judge, she would be in a better position to understand were the claimants was coming from and would be in the position to make a fairer judgment as she may have shared the same views and experiences as the claimant as they of the same sex.^[9]

However, under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 schedule 12, the judges have already been filtered out by the Judicial Appointment Committee. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent commission that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales, and for some tribunals whose jurisdiction extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland. It selects candidates for judicial office on merit, through fair and open competition, from the widest range of eligible candidates.^[10] Merit selection is a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships. 3 most qualified applicants will then be submitted by the commission to the appointing authority, who then make a final selection among the 3 applicants. Through a commission or by the voters in an uncontested election, judges are then evaluated for retention.^[11] Due to this merit system, not only the unqualified applicants are sifted, it also searches out the most qualified ones. ^[12]

Supreme Court of Canada had said that judges are the pillar of the entire justice system. Highest standards of integrity must be strived by the judge in both personal and professional life. They are knowledgeable about the law, prepared to undertake in-depth legal research and capable to write decisions that are clear and convincing. Their judgment should be fair and they are able to make decisions after close scrutiny. Judges should be open minded and a good listener, but should be able to ask questions that get to the core of the issue before the court. Judges should be courteous but strict enough to rein a rambling lawyer or a rude spectator. Judges are qualified after making a significant contribution to the legal profession and their communities, been active in law societies, have done volunteer and charitable work and have been active in politics or won an elected office.^[13]