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.
| Assessment | 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 assesses the application against the characteristics and qualities required for the judicial office being recruited for, assigning scores to each criteria using the scoring framework described above and providing commentary in support of these scores. Legal criteria will only be assessed and scored by the legal or judicial members of the panel.
These assessments are made on the basis of the evidence provided in the application.
Once all panel members have completed their assessments, the scores are reviewed by the panel at a sift decision meeting. The panel then decides 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 evaluate the candidate's performance against the competencies and qualities required for the role. Depending on the competition, this will include assessments of legal or specialist knowledge, case studies, practical exercises and both competency and scenario based questions exploring personal and judicial qualities.
Interview scores and assessments are agreed by the panel, taking evidence from across the whole interview. Legal scores and assessments are agreed by the legal or judicial panel members, whilst personal and judicial elements are assessed by the whole panel.
Interview Decision Meeting
After all interviews have been completed and following a period of reflection, the panel meets again to consider who should be recommended for appointment.
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.