The Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 2026

Executive summary

The maximum number of judges in the Court of Session is currently 36, specified in section 1(1) of the 1988 Act, as amended by the Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 2022 (SSI 2022/096). This Order will increase the maximum number of judges of the Court of Session, also known as senators of the College of Justice to 40.

There is no direct impact on the protected characteristics with the main function of the SSI being administrative by increasing the maximum number of judges. While the policy itself does not alter appointment processes, it relates to judicial office holders and may engage broader considerations regarding access to judicial office, representation and diversity within the judiciary.

The assessment recognised that the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland (JABS) is responsible for recommending individuals to the First Minister who are suitable for appointment as senators of the Court of Session. In carrying out its functions, the Board is subject to a statutory duty to have regard to the need to encourage diversity among those available for selection and recommendation for judicial appointment.

Although no direct equality impacts from the policy have been identified, the Scottish Government has identified potential indirect positive equality outcomes. By increasing the statutory maximum of senators who may be appointed, the Order is intended to enhance judicial capacity, which may help reduce court waiting times, and improve timely resolution of cases. Improved access to justice can be particularly beneficial for individuals and groups who may face barriers in engaging with the justice system.

In addition, increasing the number of senators who can be appointed provides greater flexibility to respond to emerging business needs and support longer-term judicial workforce planning. Where additional appointments are made, this may create further opportunities to attract a broader and more diverse pool of candidates, helping to improve representation within the judiciary over time. While these outcomes cannot be attributed directly to the Order, they represent potential indirect positive equality impacts arising from increased judicial capacity and flexibility.

No direct or indirect discriminatory effect from the policy was identified.