JAC should charge regulators for making appointments, MoJ review suggests


MoJ: Pushing for a "more commercial" model

MoJ: Pushing for a “more commercial” model

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) should charge regulators like the General Medical Council and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) fees for making “quasi-judicial” appointments, a government review has suggested.

While praising the JAC for slashing its budget by almost a third since 2010, the triennial Ministry of Justice (MoJ) review said the commission should move to a “more commercial” model.

“The JAC has been approached by non-government regulatory or adjudicatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council and Solicitors Regulatory Authority, to conduct or support selection exercises for posts which exercise judicial-type functions,” the MoJ said.

It argued that “consideration should be given as to whether the JAC should have the authority to conduct and charge for such exercises”.

Factors to be taken into account, the review said, included the “maintenance of the JAC’s independence” under the arrangements, the need to protect and prioritise “public functions” and the continued delivery of value for money.

The review recommended that the JAC also consider charging government departments outside the MoJ for appointments.

“In response to continued fiscal pressure, further work should be done to move the JAC to a more commercial finance model where the MoJ funds the overheads and the JAC charges government departments, such as the Home Office for Asylum and Immigration Tribunal appointments.”

The review concluded that “the function of the JAC, namely the open and merit-based selection of candidates for judicial office, is critical to upholding the rule of law and supporting judicial independence, and must remain”.

It said the commission should continue to operate as a non-department public body which “provides the appropriate balance of independence and accountability consistent with its important constitutional role”.

On efficiency, the review found that the JAC had “significantly improved” its economic performance since 2010.

“As part of 2010 spending review, the MoJ was asked to realise savings of 33%. The JAC supported the MoJ in delivering these savings, reducing its budget and resource spend by 32%, from £8.2m in 2010/11 to £5.6m in 2013/14.

“The meeting of this target is a good indicator of the current ‘health’ of the JAC’s relationship with the MoJ over its financial management.”

An MoJ spokesman said: “The JAC plays a vital role in the selection of our judiciary which was reinforced by the results of its first triennial review. This found the JAC was governed well, was crucial in upholding the rule of law and supported judicial independence and should remain.

“We are at the beginning of the process of exploring different options for charging models.”




    Readers Comments

  • Good article bUt reading between the lines how long will it be before the JAC charge an “admin fee” for all their judicial candidates? Could be a fraction of the QC fee and still generate a substantial amount towards their budget.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

18 October 2018
Claire Stockford

An analogue decision? Google defeats attempt at consumer ‘class action’

In an eagerly awaited judgment, the High Court handed down its ruling in Richard Lloyd v Google LLC on 8 October. It seems clear that there is a degree of reluctance to permit group litigation which will not materially benefit consumers. That being said, it is hard to ignore the increased possibilities of group litigation in the context of corporate data breaches, particularly following the implementation of GDPR earlier this year.

Read More