Court hears damning claims of secrecy and unfairness in failed judicial appointment case
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has come under fire over claims that it relied on secret, undisclosed criticisms to block a judge’s promotion — prompting fierce scrutiny from top judges in the Court of Appeal.
At the centre of the storm is District Judge Kate Thomas, who is challenging the legality of the JAC’s decision to deny her elevation to the circuit bench. The dispute focuses on the JAC’s use of ‘statutory consultation’ — a process she claims was wielded unfairly and opaquely against her.
During the hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the JAC, vigorously denied any wrongdoing. He argued that decision-makers must be able to access the “fullest and frankest” information possible when assessing candidates, and insisted the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 protects the confidentiality of statutory consultations.
But that defence failed to quell concerns from senior members of the bench. Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos took direct aim at the secrecy embedded in the system.
Embed from Getty Images“If the process has a secret element by statute, [candidates] must know what’s going to happen and prepare for it,” Vos declared, adding that if a statutory consultee made a “very remarkable” negative claim, the candidate must be made aware of it. “Mystery about this process is extremely unhelpful,” he warned.
Judge Thomas said she had received conflicting letters from the JAC explaining why her application failed — fuelling accusations of procedural unfairness. The case has exposed broader concerns about transparency in judicial recruitment and whether candidates are being blindsided by hidden criticisms.
The legal challenge drew an intervening submission from 4A Law, an immigration visa firm with a vested interest in the fairness of JAC procedures. Represented by barrister Arfan Khan, the firm argued that Thomas was denied the high standard of procedural fairness required in such appointments.
In court, Khan contended that the JAC’s selection and character committee overturned an independent panel’s recommendation to appoint Thomas without disclosing adverse comments made through statutory consultation. His written submission asserted that the commission failed in its “Thameside duty” — a legal principle requiring public authorities to conduct reasonable inquiries and disclose the basis for adverse decisions.
Khan further warned that undisclosed sources were allowed to derail Thomas’s application without the opportunity for her to respond — a breach of natural justice. The court granted 4A Law formal permission to intervene in the proceedings.
For now, the Court of Appeal’s final ruling remains pending. Sir Geoffrey Vos, alongside Lord Justice Underhill and Lady Justice Nicola Davies, has reserved judgment following the conclusion of the two-day hearing.
The outcome could have serious implications for how judges are appointed in the UK — and whether the JAC must lift the veil on its deeply criticised consultation processes.
