Retired sheriff hits out at embattled judicial appointments process

In a letter to the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland, written in response to an anonymous article expressing misgivings about the process, Kevin Drummond QC, retired Sheriff of Lothian & Borders, wrote that, had the author reached the interview stage, “you would have risked being left even further depressed”.

“I applaud your disclosure of your feelings on approaching the form and in particular I recognise your observation that JABS know that unsuccessful applicants are unlikely to publicise their failure. To that extent I also respect your desire to maintain your anonymity,” he wrote.

Mr Drummond, who was appointed before the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland came into being, explained that this was “before ministers were given the power to give ‘guidance’ to the board, before ‘diversity’ criteria arrived and before the civil service got its hands on the process”.

The former sheriff was a ‘mock’ candidate for the position of sheriff principal and in that capacity went through the application process, including the debrief after interview.

He wrote: “I tell you no more than what I expressly told the board at the time, namely, (i) that the entire process was superficial and inadequate to the extent that it did not begin to disclose the qualities or otherwise of the interviewee, and (ii) that it was a civil service process designed for the appointment of civil servants.”

In response, he was told that this was the “only fair way”.

Mr Drummond concluded: “The opinions which your ‘wannabe sheriff’ has expressed are little more or less than opinions which we all know are currently being expressed (usually privately) at many levels across the legal profession: they are also opinions which have been expressed consistently since the JABS took control of appointments to the judiciary.

“Nothing will change until those opinions, too many of which are expressed in private, become public currency and demand is made for change.”