Activities per year
Abstract
This article challenges the ‘Equal Merit Principle’, introduced to the judicial appointment process by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The author argues that this principle does not take diversity seriously enough and none of its possible justifications stand up to close scrutiny. The author also claims that the doctrine that judges should be appointed solely on the basis of merit is either wrong, for the very same reasons as the Equal Merit Principle, or rather uninformative because it fails to give sufficient guidance to those who select judges.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1052-1072 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Modern Law Review |
| Volume | 80 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 20 Nov 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2017 |
Keywords
- judicial appointments
- merit in judicial appointments
- equal merit
- judicial diversity
- Constitutional Reform Act 2005
- Crime and Courts Act 2013
Access to Document
- Gyorfi_EqualMerit_AAM
The definitive version is available at www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Other files and links
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Why Is the Equal Merit Principle (Almost) Straightforwardly Wrong?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Tamas Gyorfi
- School of Law, Law - Personal Chair
- School of Law, Centre for Constitutional and Public International Law
Person: Academic
Activities
- 1 Invited talk
-
Judicial diversity - why is the rate of progress so slow?
Tamas Gyorfi (Speaker)
15 Nov 2017Activity: Disseminating Research › Invited talk