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 (or interview candidates, depending on the stage) 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 future recommendation for appointment most unlikely. |
These descriptors are used at both the sift and interview stages.
Sift
At the sift stage, Panel members will assign numeric scores to each scorable element of each application (which align with the six divisions noted above), which are tallied to give an overall score, as assessed by each Panel member. All Panel member scores are then combined to give a master score. Once this is done, the Panel will meet to discuss scores and decide who is to be invited to interview.
Interview
At the interview phase, each Panel member will note their observations as the interview progresses. Following the interview, the Panel will discuss the candidate who has just been interviewed and will assign scores to each of the interview elements (e.g., civil case study, criminal case study, personal and judicial questions - the elements will differ depending on the role being recruited). Unlike the sift phase where each Panel member will offer individual scores for each applicant, at interview the Panel will agree candidate scores as a group. These scores are then recorded and once all interviews have been completed, the Panel will re-convene a few days after the last interview to discuss all interview candidates and agree who will be recommended.
Non Legal Roles
Where the role being recruited is non-legal (i.e., a Tribunal ordinary member) references to legal competence would be replaced by references to the specialism being recruited (for example, surveyor members of the Local Taxation Chamber or medical members of the Social Security Chamber).