What’s the Judicial Support Network?

And what is it trying to do?

What is the Judicial Support Network? Who runs it? Who funds it? Who are its members, its supporters? What relationship does it have with the designated leadership judges in England and Wales? How effective has it been in supporting members of the judiciary?

We know from a report in The Times that the network was launched on 18 March this year by Judge Kaul QC, a circuit judge who sits at Wood Green crown court. “Some of us have faced unexpected challenges and have found that there is little help available to judicial office holders,” Kaul told the newspaper. She hoped the network would be a “safe place for judges to raise concerns confidentially, to support and to be a voice for those who fear raising theirs”.

Her Honour Judge Kaul QC

The website

The Judicial Support Network has a website, which presumably went live at the time of the launch but does not seem to have been updated subsequently. It carries a small photograph of Kaul and an email address based on her initials. Nobody else is named.

Under the heading Our Work, it says:

We aim to be a group of judges in your corner, to support, to listen, to help with your concerns, whether those relate to appointment to higher roles, obtaining full time appointment, advancement, allocation of work, working relationships, issues with those who manage us, welfare, safety at work generally or with the many agencies in relation to which we come into contact, including HMCTS, JAC, JACO, JCIO, MOJ, GLD, Bar Council, the Law Society and CILEx.

And it invites salaried (full-time) or fee-paid (part-time) members of the judiciary of England and Wales to write in for a copy of its draft constitution.

I did so at the end of last month, making it clear that I was not a judge. I was hoping the document might answer some of the questions raised in my opening paragraph. I also told Kaul I was interested in writing about the network that she chairs.

Kaul replied courteously and told me that the draft constitution was being circulated only to judges and some academics. A copy had been sent to the judicial press office, she added. But the press officer she named turned out not to have seen it and further attempts to get hold of the constitution have not yet proved successful.

The company

What I have established is that Judicial Support Network Limited was registered in June as a private company limited by guarantee. Kaul is one of the two directors and the other is Claire Frances Gilham, whose occupation is given as judge. She is presumably the district judge who says she was bullied, ignored and undermined after speaking out about the impact of cuts to the justice budget.

Kaul is listed as having more than 25% but not more than 50% of the voting rights in the company. The person who controls more than 50% of the voting rights but less than 75% is named as Claire Frances Norris. She and Kaul are the only members of the company, which suggests that Gilham and Norris are the same person.

Cancer of secret soundings

According to media reports, the Judicial Support Network has called for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the Judicial Appointments Commission, which selects candidates for appointment to the judiciary.

The network has also written to the Commons justice committee calling for a full investigation into the appointments process. Its letter reportedly accused the appointments commission of being institutionally discriminatory. Kaul was quoted by Eastern Eye as saying:

We understand that this cancer of secret soundings: sifting for attitudes, allegiances, composed of gossip and never revealed to the candidate has crept in and proliferated within the system, being used at a far earlier stage in the process than before. It creates bias and undermines the apparent objectivity of scoring from other subjective panel assessment and other information sources.

Lord Kakkar, chair of the appointments commission, was invited by the justice committee to give oral evidence on 29 June. After MPs gave him a hard time on judicial diversity, he was asked specifically whether there was “an issue about public confidence now as a result of the continuing under-representation of minority groups in the senior judiciary”.

In reply, Kakkar said he was “deeply anxious about the impact recent press coverage has had on potential candidates and applicants”. In an apparent reference to Kaul’s comments, he said:

There is a misunderstanding in the description of secret soundings. What we do is take statutory consultation in a very specific fashion. It is described on our website for applicants and candidates, but the reality is that we provide guidance to the named statutory consultee for each jurisdiction, which we are obliged to do in terms of consultation.

The commission chair was “very concerned that the description of secret soundings may cause anxiety among candidates and applicants; and have a chilling effect on the attractiveness for individuals from different backgrounds to seek judicial appointment”. Given the anxiety expressed by solicitors’ and barristers’ representatives, he had set up an independent review of statutory consultation.

Kakkar was concerned that press reports might discourage candidates from seeking judicial posts. But the more important question, according to Andy Slaughter MP, was whether these reports were justified:

We are aware of the report in The Times, the anonymous letter copied to this committee, matters raised in Eastern Eye and also the Judicial Support Network submission. There may be reasons why these things are anonymous, but we cannot dismiss them for that reason. Do you not think there is a body of evidence arising that suggests there may be discrimination and that may be a reason for discouraging applications from certain groups, and that is something about which you should be concerned?

Kakkar told the MP he was indeed concerned; that was why he had set up the review.

What is the Judicial Support Network?

We can see that, in a few short months, the Judicial Support Network has had a considerable impact. Although it has not published its 44-page complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission nor, ironically, its submission to the Commons justice committee about “secret soundings”, the publicity it has secured for these documents is already having an effect.

But how representative is the network? How many members does it have? Who sits on its committee? Does it speak for judges in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court? Does it even speak for the circuit bench and the district judges?

Or is it just a front for two individuals, one who found little help when she faced unexpected challenges and one who at one point was signed off work with stress? How much attention should we pay to its complaints? Given Kakkar’s concerns about a “chilling effect”, might Kaul’s network be doing more harm than good?

If, as its name and website suggest, the Judicial Support Network is a self-help organisation that provides confidential advice to those in need, it has every right to keep its affairs private. But if it is going to campaign on behalf of the judiciary — or even sections of the judiciary — then we need to know who is behind the network.

And that’s quite apart from the question of whether it is consistent with judicial independence for serving judges to establish limited companies or run campaign groups. There are good reasons why members of the judiciary don’t join trade unions or other representative bodies.

Kaul says her network has been set up with the knowledge of the senior judiciary. “No objection has been raised to us forming such an organisation or to any judge joining us,” she adds.

But that doesn’t mean they think it’s a good idea.