Orlagh Kelly: Well, thank you very much for joining us today, Nigel. We've got His Honour Judge Nigel Lickley KC here. Delighted to have you. You're the first member of the judiciary to be on the Get Briefed podcast. So thank you for taking the time. I know that you're very busy and we've a lot to talk about today because you're involved in a lot of great work. So thanks for your time.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: You're welcome. Thank you for asking me.

Orlagh Kelly: So starting off, Nigel — people will know you through your career from many facets, and obviously you sit on the bench right now. But where did your career start? Did you always want to be a lawyer? Did you always want to be a judge?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: No. I mean, I remember wanting to be a mounted policeman for a while, because I used to ride horses when I was a teenager and I thought being a mounted policeman would be quite a good job. My best friend — who remains my best friend — made a comment after a cricket match. When he was asked what he would like to do as a career, he said, I'd like to be a barrister.

I was asked the same question and said I wanted to be a barrister too. And as we processed out of Southampton in the car after a cricket match, my best friend said to me, you've no idea what a barrister is. I've been embarrassed, even now, telling you — I said, no, I've no idea what it is. So I made it my business to find out. And that was at about 15. So 16, 17, into sixth form. There was an American TV show called The Paper Chase. It was about the Harvard Law School. That was quite good. That was inspiring a bit. I think Rumpole of the Bailey was starting. So that was something. But one of my tutors in the sixth form — having heard from someone, or even from me, that I was interested in the law — got me what we would now call shadowing or marshalling with a firm of solicitors in my hometown. So I went to the Crown Court with them every day, with a very nice lady's gold Ford Capri. And I watched a barrister in action, who I still see — he's now 78, still practising. And I went home after day one and my parents said, what do you think of it? And I said, it's the best job in the world, because it was fantastic — interesting, challenging, fun. The interaction between him as a barrister, the police officers, the judge, was just mind-blowing. And that was it really. So I read law at university and off I went.

Orlagh Kelly: Fantastic. And so would you say that route — once you decided that you wanted to do it — was fairly straightforward for you?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Well, my parents aren't lawyers. We had no sort of lawyer family friends. I had to work it out for myself, although university tutors were helpful, pointing me in the right direction. Some of my friends were doing the same thing. So I joined my Inn of Court, Gray's Inn, and we were able to dine in our third year on Sundays — so you got one decent meal a week by going to Hall and dining.

Orlagh Kelly: What year did you call?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: I was called in 1983 — what's that, 41 years ago, my word. And I think it was a different time and we'll perhaps talk about that in a moment. But the big thing that was different was that I didn't carry any debt — because my local authority, Hampshire County Council, paid, as they did then, my university fees and gave me a grant. My parents had to pay a little bit towards it, but I got a grant. And when I wanted to go to bar school, one of my tutors wrote a nice letter which I sent to Hampshire County Council and they paid for bar school as well, and gave me a grant.

Orlagh Kelly: Definitely sounds like a different time.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Well, absolutely. Students now who we see coming to court are in debt — huge, huge amounts of money — having to fund bar school themselves, working at the same time to get through. It's very, very challenging. So we had that advantage. But there was no internet. There was no way of finding out what to do. You had to ask people. And barristers then weren't allowed to advertise. So there were no websites. You couldn't look up a chambers and see what they did and find out who was the best. There was one book, which was the bar directory, which told you what work chambers did using a letter code. So if you wanted to do criminal, perhaps that was letter C. And they might say they were a Western Circuit set or a Midland Circuit set. And you simply had to write to them, write a letter and say, can I please be a pupil?

Orlagh Kelly: Okay.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: And that's how it happened. And it was fortuitous. So there was less of a structure. And the bar then — well, I'm sure we'll come to it, and I'm going on a bit — but it was very different. Very different.

Orlagh Kelly: Well, I mean, thinking about the pupillage application process that happens now — very structured but quite an onerous process on bar students, really. A lot of people and not a lot of places — it has become a complex infrastructure almost, trying to get into the bar. Very different, obviously, from what your experience was back in the early 1980s, albeit that there must have been some element of luck. Even to know that you should send a letter must have been something that was lucky. And did you send many letters, or did you get accepted on your first one?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Well, a professor at my college put me in touch with one set of chambers because he knew someone there. And they interviewed me and offered me a first six-month pupillage. In those days it was quite common to do one half of your pupillage in one set and then go to another set for the second six months, where you could earn some money. Of course, pupillages then weren't funded — you had to fund it yourself. And only perhaps a year or two before my year, pupillage fees had been abolished. And that's when a pupil had to pay a barrister a fee — I think it might have been 200 guineas a year — to be taught by the pupil master. Complete reversal now, where pupillages are funded. So they offered me a first six, but I really wanted twelve months because I couldn't guarantee getting six months somewhere else.

And many of my friends did exactly that. So I sent maybe half a dozen letters. And one landed on the desk of my pupil master, the late but great David DeMambro in 2 Harcourt Buildings, and he rang me up and said, come and see me, you can be my first pupil. And that was that. And that was the summer of 1983.

It was a hot summer, I remember. He asked me to start early in July, so I did. Gray's Inn very kindly gave me a scholarship — some money. And that got me through pupillage. But yes, you're absolutely right. Now, with the proliferation of providers of courses — there was only one bar school then, there are now several places where you can do the course. There are far more people qualifying. Pupillage numbers were in the 300s a while ago. I think this year might have been around 700 for the first time in a while. But the competition — you're competing with people who haven't been successful the previous year, two years, three years, four years, five years. Extremely difficult. Extremely difficult.

When I was leader of the Western Circuit, we established a funded pupillage scheme. So the circuit was able to fund one pupillage — it's only one, but one pupillage for a circuit set — providing them with the funding for the first six months. Because some small sets cannot afford to fund perhaps more than one or two pupils. And it just meant — the scheme has been going now for, where are we, 13 or 14 years. It means 13 or 14 people — very small numbers, but nevertheless, those 13 or 14 people were able to get a pupillage and embark upon their careers.

Orlagh Kelly: Without having, necessarily, finances as the barrier — which of course we're going to talk about: barriers to entry and also the barriers to moving on through the profession. But before we get to that, I know it's a passion of yours. You obviously got your pupil master, as they were called back in the day, and you moved throughout your career at the bar. So what did that look like? What type of work did you do? Where did you typically cut your teeth?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Exactly. Yeah, so I wasn't taken on in my first set. They were a set that did a mixed common law — crime, a lot of family and civil — but I wasn't taken on there. But my pupil master knew — well, he knew I was from Hampshire and knew I might want to work on the Western Circuit. And he knew the then leader of the Western Circuit, Patrick Back QC, who'd been a prisoner of war of the Japanese — which puts all this in historical context — and had worked on the Burma Railway. His chambers, 3 Paper Buildings, were on the opposite side of the garden in the Temple. So he contacted Patrick, who he knew, and said, go and see Patrick, because he might want you to go there to be a pupil. So again, it was a connection. Again, I was sort of floundering thinking, what on earth do I do? I've completed my pupillage — where do I go?

In those days, quite a lot of people "squatted" — as it was called — where you might stay on in chambers after your pupillage and work, but you weren't a tenant. And some chambers would have squatters who might be there for two or three years. They might take them on, they might not. So they were working and earning money, but they weren't formally members of chambers. So I wandered around to Paper Buildings. I met Patrick and the senior clerk, Charles Charlick. And Patrick very kindly — well, he's one of those who moulded my career. And so I went to Paper Buildings, number 3, and then worked in London on the Western Circuit. I stayed in the same chambers throughout my entire career. And again that connection — my pupil master David knew Patrick. I went to see Patrick. And I was lucky again.

Orlagh Kelly: Yeah. Well, that's a wonderful story. And so, you know, to spend your entire career at a set of chambers — I guess it's not completely unusual. A lot of people who typically start at pupil level will spend a career there, but it might be going a little bit out of fashion. People are more inclined to move than they used to be, I think.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah, absolutely. Obviously throughout my career, people have moved — I think more regularly — from set to set. It's always disappointing when someone leaves, but there are often very good reasons: career progression and so on. But when I started, leaving chambers was a bad thing. People got very grumpy when people left chambers. It was quite something — it was almost a scandal — if somebody was leaving chambers, because there was this feeling of loyalty: we're a team, we're all in this together. And that's changed, and I think that's absolutely right. People move for all sorts of reasons — personal, wanting to move out of London and live in the countryside and have a different life, educating their children, quality of life. But it was frowned upon. It really was, back in the 1980s and early 1990s. But thankfully, we've moved on from that.

Orlagh Kelly: And so, you know, 3PB is one of the largest sets of chambers in the country now. It has gone from strength to strength. And some of that must have been under your leadership because I know that you were head of chambers for a period of time — is that right?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah, I was head of chambers for three years before I came here. When I started, I think we were 34. There were only three women. One was a silk — Rosina Hare, Patrick's wife, was a silk. And so she was extremely rare — a woman in silk at the bar. And she was extremely busy and very dynamic. But three women out of 34.

Orlagh Kelly: Ten per cent.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah. Now chambers is over 220, I think, with annexes around the country. Things have changed. I think the makeup of chambers now far more reflective of society — women, members of chambers from ethnic minority backgrounds and so on. But the first ethnic minority member of our chambers is my wife. She was a pupil — she was called to the bar in 1995 and was a pupil in chambers. And many years later we got together. But she was the first ethnic minority background member of chambers taken on — in what would it be? Let me think now — 1996 or 1997.

Orlagh Kelly: That kind of feels quite late, really, doesn't it?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah, yeah, it does. It does. But the makeup of the bar — when I started, fewer women, significantly fewer women, ethnic minority members of the bar, very few. Very, very few. It was a white, male-dominated profession and largely, you know, privately educated.

I went to a state school, a comprehensive school and a sixth form college. And I remember feeling — I wouldn't say it's completely gone away. I sometimes feel — I won't say inferior — but there was a time when people would talk about their school and their experiences and I'd perhaps be a little more cagey about speaking about my school and my experiences. I was always conscious of that.

But perhaps I had strength of character — or some sort of inner confidence — to carry on. When I got my award from Gray's Inn, I was handed this cheque by a very senior member of the Inn and he said, what are you going to do with this money? Well, I knew it was going to pay the bills. I mean, that's what it was going to do.

And he said, when I won this award and when I won it I bought a hunter. And I said, it's okay, I've got a VW Polo. And I thought he meant a car — a Hillman Hunter. But he meant a horse to go hunting.

Because I'm an idiot. So I say, I've got a VW Polo. And he almost sort of pulled the cheque back — as if to say, this man's a complete idiot, why are we giving him a cheque for this scholarship? Because he thinks a hunter's a car. And at those moments throughout your career, they stick, don't they? They're just so embarrassing.

Orlagh Kelly: It plants the seed — opening up the bar as a white profession, talking about social mobility and the ability for people to go on and be successful advocates, barristers and members of the judiciary is not necessarily linked to going to a public school and working in and enjoying an environment that's different. And so just before we get onto that — because I do want to talk to that point — you obviously made a decision at some stage to leave the bar and go to the bench. And that's not something I ever did and I didn't want to do, but I'm interested to understand the thought process. From being — and a lot of people do it, obviously — it's a somewhat natural progression, but given that at one stage you didn't know what a barrister was, would it be fair to say that you didn't necessarily start out with the aspiration of being a judge?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Absolutely. I mean, if you'd said to me then, one day you'll take silk and one day you'll be a judge, I'd have thought that was fantasy land. The bar's not very good at patting people on the back and saying, well done. I don't know if you found that. You sort of stumble along and things tend to happen. Cases come in and cases don't come in. And I started getting instructed in some rather good cases, being led by some very senior silks on circuit — one in particular who was circuit leader. Whether he was impressed by what I did, I don't know. But shortly after that, when I was 37, it was suggested I should apply to become an assistant recorder, as they were then. Before assistant recorders were abolished in 2000, before you became a recorder, you would sit for three years as an assistant recorder, doing crime. And so I did. It was suggested and I thought, well, why not? I'll have a go. And I really enjoyed it. I found it challenging, interesting. Sitting — having a different view of the court. I'd seen that view when I was lucky enough to be a marshal — two High Court judges in 1984 in Manchester. That's for another day. That's a series of stories that you really ought to hear because it's remarkable. Well, that could be episode two, if you're so inclined. And so I started sitting down in the far west — Truro, Plymouth, Exeter — doing criminal trials. And I thoroughly enjoyed it. But it was five or six weeks a year. It was great. So I carried on with my work.

I was doing civil and criminal — prosecuting and defending. Civil was personal injury mostly, then called medical negligence, now clinical negligence. And then in 2000, I was instructed in a very long case — a criminal trial — which ran for 15 months, and it was in London. And it effectively put paid to my civil practice. I couldn't keep up with it, have conferences, go to court — I was in this trial.

In 2002, silks were paused — the silk application process was stopped. The then government thought, we don't need a badge. So there were no further silk competitions until 2006. 2006 came, and again there had been hints from people, suggestions — you know, if you apply, we'll support you. So I applied then for silk and I was successful. One of the fascinating things about my career — and others have expressed this — is that it goes through various stages. I could have stayed a junior barrister all my career and had a very fulfilling and rewarding career. But if you achieve a different rank, you move on to different work. You perhaps travel more, you're away from home more. I'd be away for weeks on end, see the family at weekends, which hadn't happened when I was a junior. So that was 2006. I then stayed in silk until 2018 — 12 years. And I kind of was thinking, well, if you're going to do it, you've got to do it now. And the jobs here were coming up, and someone again said, you might like to think about that. So here I am.

Orlagh Kelly: And was it a good move?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah, it's a fantastic job. I mean, it's rewarding, it's hard work. But it's a different career now — it's a sort of progression. There are moments when I'm sitting in court, a witness has given evidence, somebody's about to stand up and cross-examine, and I think — I wish — you know, the first question's going to be this, it's going to be the best question ever. Of course you cross your fingers and wait for the question.

Orlagh Kelly: You must be watching counsel cross-examining or opening arguments or reading their skeleton arguments and judging that — excuse the pun.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: I suppose in a way. I mean, my colleagues here — you might say, so-and-so did a brilliant job today, it was a fantastic cross-examination. And that's excellent. And somebody who'll make submissions on a point — succinct, directly on the issue. They've set it out in very few pages in writing, they repeat it orally, and it has great impact. So yes, in a quiet way you're sitting there thinking, yes, I've got that point, you don't need to repeat it. You can move on to the next point.

Orlagh Kelly: And quite a few judges will say that out loud and say, that's enough. We don't want to hear any more.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Well, I might say, yes, I've got the point. You can move on. But I mean, advocates — there's no set mould. I think people do things differently. They work at different speeds, they appear in court and they are different advocates. But that's part of the interest and the fun.

Orlagh Kelly: Talented advocates are almost beautiful to watch. It's such — I would almost liken it to listening to a symphony or something. It's ethereal, it's magical. And even as a much younger barrister, I recall sitting in the Court of Appeal with a lot of QCs as they were then advocating, and in my rather naive eyes I think that it doesn't sound that proficient or fluent to me, it feels a bit difficult. And then someone would start and their oratory skills were just incredible. They stood out and stood beyond everybody else. But it takes a long time to get there and a lot of practice.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah. But I've just finished reading Sally Smith's biography of Marshall Hall, the great Victorian advocate — and stories of cases here in Court One in the old building. It was then the new building for him, and his rather theatrical form of advocacy. But again — it's not that long ago — but you know, to fund defences, newspapers would raise money to provide the fees for counsel to defend somebody charged with murder, because there was no funding for defendants. And newspapers would follow court proceedings on a daily basis, vast amounts of coverage for court trials, and wherever he seemed to go, whatever case he was in — because he was such a celebrity, MP twice and so on — the media followed him. It's a fascinating insight into that world. And so the other day, when I was here and it was quiet, I went and sat in Court One where he would have sat, and stood in the witness box where some of his lay clients stood and answered questions across the court to the same judge's chair that's still there. The same furniture is still there.

And it's interesting to reflect — in one trial he was doing here, the jury were out but the court sat on Saturdays. Criminal trials sat on Saturdays. The jury stayed in a hotel in Cheapside and went to the Inner Temple church for a service on Sunday morning and then came back to court on Monday. They sat on Saturdays. Let's not suggest that. I mean, I like my weekends.

Orlagh Kelly: It's a controversial statement.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: No. I think the great oratory — your point — absolutely. When someone is making a closing speech and it has great impact, I just sit back and listen and enjoy it. And I think that's one of the joys of the job.

Orlagh Kelly: One other point on this relatively new part of your career — I recall you mentioning to me previously the fact that you're sitting there and you're looking at the defendant, often quite young people, their families, the families of victims potentially if it's a criminal matter that you're dealing with. And the gravity of that situation is — well, it's my phrase, not yours — quite confronting. Because it's life-changing for everybody in that room. So how does that come across, how do you feel about that, and how do you handle that to continue to give everybody access to justice?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah, so often we have — apart from the trials, you know — young defendants, young victims, two families. The victim's family might sit in the well of the court, and the families of the young defendants in the public gallery. And they're all on the same journey, but coming at it from completely different positions.

And obviously there's tension, there's emotion — particularly when there are verdicts and if there are convictions. A lot of young defendants, I've found, and others have found — Wendy Joseph KC has written about them in her books — educational challenges are common, difficult upbringings, difficult records at school, often excluded from school, membership of gangs. And the world sort of comes together in the theatre of a courtroom, with a man wearing a horsehair wig and black robes, and counsel speaking in certain phrases, referring to me — I refer to them — as my learned friend, members of the jury, twelve people involved who know nothing about any of the parties but having to make very big decisions. And they do. All of that comes together — there is tension, there's emotion.

How do you manage it? Well, I have to be the person in control. I have to be in charge. And I find — and I'm sure other judges are exactly the same — that the way to be in control is to be understanding, sympathetic, but to be firm. You know, if there is misbehaviour in court, you have to deal with it in a firm way, but acknowledging the tension and stress that people are under. Somebody might hear something in the public gallery and shout out, or there might be tension between the families in the public gallery. Or a family member of the victim may hear something — it might be a pathologist going through the injuries to the victim — and it might be too much for them and they have to leave court. It's all about taking time and trying to manage people's feelings and emotions in an alien environment — something they would not normally experience, or may never experience again.

Orlagh Kelly: Yeah.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: It's very difficult. I'm often asked, how do you deal with the sort of trauma of the cases? And I always give the same answer. I think judges develop a sort of armadillo-like coating. And we have a professional detachment — rather like doctors perhaps have a professional detachment. I'm not saying cases don't get to you, because they can, because of the tragedy involved. And I think from our experience working at the bar, the cases we did — one can never be too surprised at what human beings are capable of, sadly. And so you develop that — more than a veneer, it's more of, as I say, my armadillo plating, my Teflon coating — to retain a professional detachment. And you take on the job, and my job is to get through the trials and bring about a result which is our part of the process. You know, the grieving family or the family of the defendants, they have many years ahead of them once they leave the building. The part of the process here is finished, but I never lose sight of the fact that their ordeal — whichever side you're on — will continue for decades, potentially. And we're part of that process.

Orlagh Kelly: It is striking. And I think for people outside of the legal profession, they really won't understand the theatre — which I think was a great phrase — of wigs and gowns and the language that's really quite traditional. And then the opposite of that being individuals who are perhaps defendants who have come up not even having received a proper education. And one of the things that I found striking, when I was later on into my career in private practice and I started to do public law work where children — for example, babies were victims of non-accidental injuries — and you started to read the reports around their parents and you wonder, how do their parents not protect them? And once you start to see that same theme of being excluded from school, or suffering from abuse themselves, you do start to feel like that person actually never really had a proper chance. Certainly didn't have the chances that I had. And I think that's quite difficult to handle — unless you're, well, I find it more difficult now that I'm not in private practice than when I was, because it was somewhat routine that I was dealing with it every day. But it does make me wonder — to have that level of resilience, and as you said, that armadillo skin — would you say that you almost needed 20 or 30 years at the bar to build up that level of resilience to deal with these types of situations? That it's a necessary part of being a judge, having that career pathway behind you. Because of course, and I don't know that it's the same in all jurisdictions, there is sometimes a conversation around there should be career judges — judges from not graduate level, but not far past that. And what I wonder about then is, when do you actually get the resilience to deal with that type of work if you don't go through that longer pathway at the bar or as a solicitor?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah. I mean, I think that's essential — to have that professional background. And my colleagues here have all had that similar background. But as you say, you're right. In France, for example, you go to judge school — and also prosecutor school — because there you can prosecute and be a judge, and then you can switch from being a judge to being a prosecutor and back again.

Orlagh Kelly: Heavily slanted towards prosecution, though, obviously.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah. But if you're a defender in France, you remain a defender, as I understand it. We were in Paris a couple of years ago and we were wandering around the Palais de Justice and we met an advocate and we told him — my wife and I — what we did. And he spent two hours with us, taking us around the building. We went to the office of the bâtonnier, who is the head of the bar in France, and it was remarkable. He took us into a couple of trials, a Court of Appeal hearing. And it was interesting — the Court of Appeal hearing was so like a Court of Appeal hearing in England, although I didn't understand a word of what they were saying, or the odd word. There were three judges — three female judges in this particular Court of Appeal. One was clearly the one tasked with, you know, asking the questions. The senior judge in the middle was following intently, and the third judge was perhaps paying less attention than the others, or so it seemed. And again, it was remarkably similar.

Orlagh Kelly: Even though they have a different legal system essentially, which is interesting.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Really, yes — they're inquisitorial. So the victim is represented in a trial. And I think we often have visiting judges here. We've had judges here from all over the world — they come to visit and spend time with us. Different, different approaches to it. I personally, I think, would have found it very difficult to start judging without quite a lot of experience as to how the courts work and what we do.

Orlagh Kelly: Yeah. Yeah, I would agree. That would seem to me to be a logical way, but I guess that's not to say that there aren't other ways as well. So I know — and we've been coming to it throughout our conversation — but now that you're firmly a member of the judiciary, you clearly — some of the things you've said throughout our podcast today talk about the gender disparities at the bar when you first started, the absence of people from different ethnic backgrounds. And you are heavily involved now, as a member of the judiciary, in a number of programmes that try to change things. Can you tell us a little bit about what it is that you're involved in and what you do now, outside of the judging?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yes, of course. The Judicial Appointments Commission in 2021 — I think it must be now, time flies — took on a role to address the diversity imbalance in the judiciary. So essentially, 90% of judges are white. The vast majority of those are men. Judges from ethnic minority backgrounds make up only 10% of the judiciary. So that does not reflect society. Judges from a Black background make up approximately 1% to 1.5% of the judiciary. And so the JAC started — three former commissioners — the Targeted Outreach Programme, which was designed to provide targeted support to the underrepresented groups: those from ethnic minority backgrounds, solicitors, women, and those with disabilities. Because the research has shown — and it continues to show from the candidates we now support — that there are barriers (it's a word that crops up repeatedly) to people applying or even thinking about becoming a judge. Imposter syndrome is a huge factor — people thinking, well, I wouldn't fit in. It's only for white people, only for people from public schools, only barristers. And yet I'm a solicitor, I'm a single parent, I've had a career break, I don't know any judges, it wouldn't be for me. But I am really interested. And there are many, many very talented people who would make excellent judges from those underrepresented groups.

And so the Targeted Outreach Programme very kindly asked me to be the director of training for the judges who are the judicial guides. We now have over 160 trained and accredited judges. One Lady Justice of Appeal, Lady Justice Dame Sarah Falk, has kindly been trained and is accredited to help. We have some High Court judges as well, and judges across the whole spectrum — recorders, Deputy High Court judges, circuit judges, district judges, and so on, and a lot of tribunal judges. The diversity stats in the tribunals are slightly better than the judiciary generally. And so when people are interested in a judicial career — they may have done one or two other programmes — they can apply, or a stakeholder or a judge might refer them. They apply to come onto the scheme. There's a traffic light system of vetting, and the former commissioners who are now working with the scheme might interview people, speak to them, make sure they're actually looking at the right job. There's no point applying to be a High Court judge if perhaps your skill set won't match that job. And then we match them with a guide. If you're applying to be a tribunal judge, we'll match them with a tribunal judge so far as we can. And that person will help them with the process — break down those barriers, build confidence, and help them with the application. They draft their applications themselves, but just help them. Help them if they get through to selection day, which in itself is an achievement. And then hopefully be able to say, well done, when they finally get through. So when I started, I talked about the 10% dial moving.

I think in fact the latest stats show that it shifted to 11%. There are other programmes — we can't take all the credit for this, and individuals of course are appointed without any help at all. But it's rewarding work. The feedback we get from people who've been assisted shows that it's made a difference to them. And also we're working with those who are not successful but have got to selection day — they might have missed appointment by a fraction — helping them, building up their confidence to apply again. And perhaps last year or earlier this year, one candidate I worked with for a couple of years finally was appointed to the circuit bench. She had been unsuccessful on a number of occasions, but she finally got through. Richly deserved. Richly deserved.

And yeah, we have fantastic support from the very senior judiciary — the Lady Chief Justice, the Senior President of Tribunals, the Senior Presiding Judge, and so on.

Let's keep working to shift that dial a little bit more to increase the representation of the underrepresented groups.

Orlagh Kelly: Absolutely. And I'm sure there are plenty of people within those pools of talented lawyers who maybe aren't aware of the fact that there is this opportunity for support. So what we'll do is make sure that underneath the podcast and anywhere that we publish it, we'll include information — in the event that we can at least support all of the hard work that you're doing. I'm sure on the side of all of the busyness that you have when you're sitting. And so thinking about your own start in the career, the fact that you didn't come from a public school background but that you've been as successful as you have — what advice would you give to anyone who's an aspiring judge?

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Well, I think the first thing to do — try and — there'll be many, many judges who will welcome you if you were to say, can I come and sit with you for a week to watch what it's like doing your job? My colleagues here, we often have students and visitors coming in.

Orlagh Kelly: A bit of the old school work shadowing.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah. And it's a really good insight into what the job is like. And there's no point applying for a job if — you might, as a practitioner, see it from one side of the room and a judge disappears through a door at the back. You know, where does the judge go? Where does that corridor lead? What does the judge do when he's not in court? And I think any judge in your local court — I'd be surprised if any judge would say no. I think all judges would say, yes of course, come in, come and see what it's like. And get a feel for what the job is. And then be bold and be brave. Don't be put off by thoughts of, you know, I won't fit in, I'm inferior, because talented people will get through. And the system now is designed to encourage that.

But I remember my first assistant recorder interview. I think the JAC had just started formally interviewing. And I was asked what made me angry. And I said, when West Ham lose. And the panel of judges were all stony-faced. And the only man that laughed was the man in the corner who was making a handwritten note of what was being said. And I remember leaving the interview thinking, what an idiot, Lickley. You've just said something so stupid. Luckily later in the day I bumped into a friend who had an interview the same day, was asked the same question, and he said, when Southampton lose. We were both appointed. We were both appointed.

And I think many of the judges we have as guides were not successful in their first applications. So they picked themselves up and applied again. And I'm one of those. And I think also when you first get to talk to a candidate, talk about your own experiences. You know, I've had the email that says, unfortunately, thank you for your interest, but — so find a judge, watch them do the job, don't be put off and reach out. And there are schemes to help. Our scheme on the JAC webpage is under a heading, Becoming a Judge. If you scroll down, there's a big section on the programme. We're now covering all Judicial Appointments Commission exercises — obviously not Supreme Court or Court of Appeal — but all other competitions, and even across the whole spectrum. When we started it was only five. And so we get surges of applicants who are interested when there are big competitions — deputy district judge, recorder and so on. But good candidates will get through. And there's a lot of support there to help you.

Orlagh Kelly: And I think, if I think about it, there is probably built into the kind of academic and professional framework an aversion to failure. You know, typically people as lawyers are used to being high achievers and progressing well, and there's not necessarily this very public acceptance that everybody actually has to fail to be able to learn. And so it must be quite scary for someone to say, well, I didn't get through, I didn't get that interview — and maybe for the first time in their lives, potentially, that they didn't get something. And so it's heartening to hear that actually a lot of judges have had to pick themselves up and go again. And that demonstrates resilience and a willingness to keep going — which I'm guessing are skills that are inevitably required as a member of the judiciary in any event. So I think if there's something to be said, it's: give it a go, and don't be demoralised if you don't get it first time round. Just keep going.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yeah, absolutely. Have faith in yourself and confidence. And yes, there's that period after the letter which says, unfortunately, sorry this time — a period of gloom and despondency. But pick yourself up, get some support, and go again. And people get through and are appointed and have remarkable new careers — after successful careers as barristers or solicitors — contributing across the whole country. And it's refreshing to see more women judges, judges from ethnic minority backgrounds, being appointed. Because that represents our society and that's how it should be.

Orlagh Kelly: Yeah. Great. Well, listen, thank you so much, Nigel. It's been fantastic to have you on here. And it's always wonderful to hear about all the different parts of a career, and particularly for someone like yourself who's gone onto the bench — to get a little bit of the human insight behind that. I know that a lot of our audience will be thinking about that as part of whether it's something that they want. And it's fantastic that the Judicial Appointments Commission has the Targeted Outreach Programme. As we say, we'll publicise that just to make sure as many people as possible can see it. And I hope to have you back because it sounds like there's an episode two to be had. Some other war stories.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: Yes, there is. Marshalling in Manchester, 1984. Yes, and I think one of the great things about my career has been the friendships I've made. There have been highs and lows, but the fun we've had. You know, met some really wonderful people, many of whom sadly are not with us anymore. And we're all on that journey together.

Somebody once said we're like little boats with lights, bobbing across a sea, and some shine more brightly than others. But we all get there, bobbing along together. It's a great journey. Thank you, Orlagh.

Orlagh Kelly: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

HHJ Nigel Lickley KC: You're most welcome. Bye.