Our Decision Process
There are two points in every competition where decisions need to be made - following the sift of applications and following the interviews. How do JABS decide firstly who is invited to interview and then who is to be recommended.
At its most basic, Panel members assess applicants against the criteria for the role and will determine where the evidence provided falls within the score descriptors:
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| Outstanding | Applicant demonstrates outstanding evidence of both legal competence and judicial and personal qualities. The evidence frequently exceeds the requirements of the role. |
| Very Strong | Applicant demonstrates very strong evidence of both legal competence and judicial and personal qualities with examples showing depth and complexity. There may be limited shortcomings but nothing that could not be addressed prior to, or immediately after appointment. |
| Strong | Applicant demonstrates strong evidence of both legal competence and judicial and personal qualities with well-chosen specific examples. The evidence will have met the requirements of the role in the majority of instances. Any particular shortcomings could be addressed prior to appointment. |
| Reasonable | Applicant demonstrates reasonable evidence of both legal competence and judicial and personal qualities, but there are shortcomings with examples not sufficiently specific or thorough. Any shortcomings would require development before appointment could be considered. |
| Weak | Some appraisable evidence of legal competence and/or judicial and personal qualities but the answers are weak. Shortcomings will require significant development prior to any future consideration for recommendation for appointment. |
| Poor | Insufficient appraisable evidence of legal competence and/or judicial & personal qualities against one or more of the required criteria. Significant shortcomings make fuure recommendation for appointment most unlikely. |