Our Decision Process
There are two key decision points in every competition:
• deciding which applicants will be invited to interview
• deciding which candidates will be recommended for appointment
At both stages, the panel assesses candidates against the criteria set out for the role. Decisions are based on the evidence available at that stage of the competition.
Assessment Framework
When assessing applicants and interview candidates, panel members consider the evidence against a set of scoring 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. |
Non Legal Roles
For non-legal tribunal appointments, references to legal competence are replaced by the specialist knowledge, skills or experience required for the role. For example, this may include professional expertise as a surveyor, medical practitioner or other specialist.
Decisions at Sift
At the sift stage, panel members assess applications independently.
Each panel member assigns scores to the assessable elements of every application using the scoring framework described above. Scores are awarded on the basis of the evidence provided by the applicant and reflect the panel member's individual assessment.
Once all panel members have completed their assessments, the scores are combined and reviewed by the panel as a whole. The panel then meets to discuss the applications and decide which applicants will be invited to interview.
Decisions at Interview
The interview stage allows the panel to assess candidates in greater depth.
During each interview, panel members record observations and evaluate the candidate's performance against the competencies and qualities required for the role. Depending on the competition, this may include assessments of legal or specialist knowledge, case studies, practical exercises and questions exploring personal and judicial qualities.
Unlike the sift stage, interview scores are agreed collectively by the panel. Following each interview, panel members discuss the evidence gathered and agree scores for the various elements of the assessment.
After all interviews have been completed, the panel meets again to consider the performance of all candidates. Drawing on the evidence from the interview, the application form and other relevant information gathered during the competition, the panel decides which candidates should be recommended for appointment.