Court of Appeal rejects district judge’s promotion appeal but slams flawed process

Judicial appointments commission criticised over ‘misleading’ feedback and secretive practices

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a district judge’s legal bid to overturn the Judicial Appointments Commission’s (JAC) refusal to promote her to the circuit bench—but not without delivering a stern rebuke over the Commission’s opaque and flawed decision-making process.

District Judge Kate Thomas had sought judicial review of the JAC’s decision, arguing that it was tainted by inconsistent reasoning and secrecy around the statutory consultation process. She received contradictory explanations for why her promotion application was unsuccessful, prompting the legal challenge.

Under the JAC’s statutory consultation procedure, senior figures in the judiciary are consulted to assess whether candidates are suitable for judicial appointments. These consultations can include informal “sub-consultations” with others who may have insight into a candidate’s conduct or capability.

In today’s judgment, Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos upheld the lawfulness of the statutory and sub-consultation processes, but concluded that the way in which they had been implemented in Thomas’s case was flawed and unfair.

Vos criticised the JAC for failing to inform candidates—before they applied—that sub-consultation could be used. “This was neither appropriate nor fair,” he ruled, adding that negative material from sub-consultees must be used with transparency and integrity.

He also challenged the Commission’s rigid policy of only disclosing negative feedback in “exceptional circumstances,” calling it “an inappropriate fetter on its discretion.” According to Vos, the JAC should consider five options when handling damaging comments from consultees—including putting the gist of that feedback to the candidate, even if the source remains confidential, or disclosing it entirely with or without the consultee’s permission.

The judgment also took aim at the feedback sent to Thomas, which the court said was “confused and misleading.” Vos said the JAC’s response had left her with “mutually contradictory” explanations, failing to meet acceptable standards of clarity and fairness.

While Thomas’s attempt to overturn the JAC’s refusal of her promotion was ultimately unsuccessful, the ruling has put a spotlight on judicial recruitment procedures that have long been criticised by applicants as secretive and prone to bias.

The JAC said it would consider the judgment carefully. The decision may lead to reforms in how the Commission conducts statutory consultations, particularly around how feedback is handled and disclosed.

Legal observers say the ruling strikes a careful balance—upholding the JAC’s authority while demanding greater accountability and fairness in its internal processes.