Checked 11 November 2026. The JAC changed its skills framework in October 2025 and may change the test format for a future exercise. On 11 November 2026 the JAC pages described five actions per question and one mark each for a correct most and a correct least appropriate choice. Your exercise instructions and vacancy page are the final word.
The JAC situational judgement test gives you a situation a judge in the role might face and five possible actions. You choose the most appropriate and the least appropriate. The JAC says you will not be tested on legal rules or procedures: you are assessed on your ability to judge how appropriate different actions are. This page explains how those two choices are marked, the skills the JAC assesses, and what its own reports say about the topics candidates found easier and harder.
For the format, timing, the composite score and test dates, see our JAC qualifying test guide. For the pre-reading and the second part, see the critical analysis test guide; for the current exercise, the Deputy District Judge qualifying test guide. Independent practice. Not affiliated with the Judicial Appointments Commission. ProSyllabus is an independent study site; the JAC did not write and does not endorse our questions.
JAC pages "Practice qualifying test tool", "Qualifying test" and "Scoring the online test" (read 11 November 2026); question count from the 2026 Recorder and 2025 Immigration and Asylum Chamber evaluation reports.
How most and least answers are marked: the JAC wording
The JAC's practice qualifying test tool page sets out the rule in two sentences: "You will get one mark for each correct choice, so there are two marks per question. You will not get any marks for choosing any other answers." The 2026 Recorder report says the same: five answer options, one point for each correct answer, so a maximum of two points a question (Recorder report).
| Your two choices | Marks | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Correct most and correct least choice | 2 of 2 | Full marks for the question |
| Correct most choice, wrong least choice | 1 of 2 | The most choice still earns its mark; each correct choice is marked on its own |
| Wrong most choice, correct least choice | 1 of 2 | The least choice still earns its mark |
| Neither choice correct | 0 of 2 | No marks for any other answer. The published wording does not describe a deduction for a wrong choice |
Source: the JAC practice tool page and the Recorder report. The JAC publishes no mark for a "nearly right" action.
FreeTests: Communication Skills · Personal Qualities · Effective Working
JAC Qualifying Test Practice · Free sample: 3 situational judgement questions: free sample
Answer 3 questions against the clock, like the real exam. You then see the right answer, the reason and your time on each. About 8 minutes · free · no sign-in.
3 questions to answer▶ Start nowThis one is free · no sign-in neededYour result shows how long each question took you.How the questions are written and checked. The reports describe the process for each exercise. For the 2026 Recorder test, questions came from the JAC's bank of approved questions plus new ones written by a Circuit Judge acting as drafting judge; for the Deputy District Judge test in report ref 184, a Circuit Judge and a District Judge drafted new questions alongside bank questions; for the 2025 Immigration and Asylum Chamber test, the situational judgement questions were taken from the bank, which judges from a range of jurisdictions wrote. In all three, the material was quality and equality assured by JAC teams, reviewed by the JAC Advisory Group (members of the judiciary and the legal professions, chaired by a lay Commissioner) and trialled in a mock assessment with volunteers (Recorder report, ref 184 report, IAC report). The reports do not publish the questions or the answer keys.
What is being assessed. The reports say candidates were assessed on their reading of a situation and their ability to judge the effectiveness of the options under each question (Recorder report, IAC report). Our interpretation: we take "reading" to involve noticing what is really at stake (a party who cannot follow, a colleague's conduct, a delay that affects someone), and "effectiveness" to involve whether the action would work in practice, not only whether it sounds principled.
The competency lens: the skills each choice is judged against
The JAC Qualifying test page says the situational judgement test assesses at least three skills and abilities: Communication Skills, Personal Qualities and Effective Working. For legal exercises launching after October 2025 they come from the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework (JSAF), which calls them skills and abilities rather than competencies. The table gives the JSAF lines under each heading in short; the last column is our reading of what they mean when you weigh five actions.
| Skill area | What the JSAF asks for (summarised) | What to weigh in a most/least choice (our reading) |
|---|---|---|
| Communication Skills | Active listening to understand a party's case without prejudgement, with courtesy, sensitivity and appropriate patience; clear language suited to the forum; an appropriately authoritative approach that inspires respect and confidence and ensures both fairness, allowing proper participation by the parties, and an efficient use of judicial resources | Does the action explain things, check understanding and keep the hearing under control? Does it cut a party off without explanation, or let a hearing drift? |
| Personal Qualities | The Bangalore Principles of independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety and equality of treatment; resilience and calm in challenging situations; a practical, common-sense approach to problem solving; open-mindedness and self-awareness | Does the action risk the appearance of bias, such as an improper private discussion of a case with one party, or a conflict left undisclosed? Is it calm and practical, or an over-reaction? |
| Effective Working | Diligent and efficient, prioritising tasks and reaching timely decisions; a collegiate approach that takes full account of the Statement of Expected Behaviour; an inclusive approach to those different from yourself; able and willing to challenge inappropriate behaviour by others; uses or can develop digital skills to the requisite standard | Does the action deal with the matter in good time, or put off a decision that is yours to make? Does it address inappropriate behaviour, or let it pass? |
Source: JSAF, legal roles (published 29 July 2025, read 11 November 2026). The JAC adds that each role has its own framework, shown on the vacancy information page. Earlier exercises could use the older Competency Framework or the JAC Skills and Abilities Framework (Skills and abilities): the 2025 Immigration and Asylum Chamber report assigns Exercising Judgement, Working and Communicating with Others, and Managing Work Efficiently to its situational judgement test, and the ref 184 Deputy District Judge report lists five competencies for the test as a whole, including those three (IAC report, ref 184 report). If your vacancy names a different framework, use its headings instead.
- Three situational judgement parts (20, 19 and 20 questions), most and least
- Three invented texts (two judgments and a speech), 20 critical analysis questions each
- 50 minutes a part in Mocks 1 and 2, 40 in Mock 3; any order
- Marked on the JAC practice tool scheme, with our own keys
- Reasons and marks by skill area
What the JAC's reports say about easier and harder topics
Each evaluation report identifies the topics of the questions most candidates got fully right (both the most and the least choice) and of those very few did. The reports give topics, not the questions, options or keys.
| Exercise | Easier topics | Harder topics |
|---|---|---|
| Recorder (2026) | Three questions where 73% or more chose both parts correctly: reasonable adjustments for witnesses; responding appropriately to inappropriate behaviour in professional settings; balancing religious observance and other belief systems (including non-belief) with fairness and the effective administration of justice | Two questions where under 10% chose both parts correctly: requests for adjournments following significant developments affecting proceedings; ensuring unrepresented parties can take part effectively in complex hearings while maintaining fairness, judicial impartiality and the efficient administration of justice |
| Immigration and Asylum Chamber, fee-paid (2025) | Two questions where 75% or more chose both parts correctly: identifying conflicts of interest and taking steps to uphold integrity and public trust in judicial independence; professional responsibility and time management in a stressful situation out of one's control | Two questions where under 8% chose both parts correctly: procedural fairness and rule enforcement; courtroom decorum and how to respond when a litigant does not follow expected formalities |
| Deputy District Judge (ref 184) | Highest-scoring question: a litigant in person not putting their best legal argument forward (67% chose both parts correctly) | Lowest-scoring question: a litigant in person taking too long with their cross-examination (10% chose both parts correctly) |
JAC evaluation reports (ref 184, 289 and 00326). Where a report gives a threshold ("73% or more", "under 10%"), the bar is drawn at that threshold and labelled as one; it is not an exact share.
A pattern we note (our reading, not the JAC's): all five harder topics named are about running a hearing: an adjournment request, unrepresented parties in a complex hearing, rule enforcement, courtroom formalities and a long cross-examination by a litigant in person. In each, fairness to one person and the needs of the hearing both have to be weighed. The reports do not say why these questions were harder. We give this kind of situation extra weight in our practice questions.
JAC evaluation reports ref 184 (2,267 candidates took the test), 289 (665) and 00326 (1,112). Lowest situational judgement scores were 10%, 5% and 5%.
None of these three reports records a highest situational judgement score of 100%. Every correct choice earns one mark, and shortlisting then depends on the JAC's scoring and the places at the next stage, so each mark you secure counts.
A method for each question (ours)
Five steps for a most/least question
- 1. Read the situation for what is at stake. Who is affected, and which duty is in play: a fair hearing, impartiality, a colleague's conduct, a delay, someone's wellbeing?
- 2. Weigh each action against the skills lens. Is it fair to every party and open? Does it keep the hearing under control and use time well? Is it calm, proportionate and yours to take?
- 3. Choose the response best suited to the facts you are given. Act promptly where that is appropriate, but allowing time, seeking advice or adjourning can be right when fairness or a sound decision requires it.
- 4. Compare the likely consequences of every option for the least. Inaction, delay, discourtesy and unfairness can each be serious; which is worst depends on the facts in the question.
- 5. Decide the two separately. Each correct choice is marked on its own. If you are sure of one, settle it first; it still earns its mark.
Our own method, built on the JSAF lines above. It is not a JAC marking rule.
Worked item 1 (written by us, not a JAC question): a long cross-examination
- Situation: In a small claims hearing listed for two hours, the defendant, who has no lawyer, has spent 40 minutes cross-examining the claimant's witness. Most questions repeat points the witness has already answered. The claimant's representative is visibly frustrated and asks you to stop it.
- A. Stop the cross-examination at once, since the points appear to have been covered.
- B. Explain to the defendant, in plain words, that these points have been answered; ask which relevant matters still need to be put to the witness; explain a reasonable time allowance for them, and keep it under review so the defendant can put their case fairly.
- C. Allow the defendant another ten minutes, then review progress.
- D. Tell the defendant, in front of everyone, that their questions are a waste of the court's time and that they may not ask anything more.
- E. Adjourn the hearing to another day so the defendant can prepare better questions.
- Our key: most appropriate B, least appropriate D. B keeps the defendant's chance to put their case, explains why, and manages the time: fairness and efficiency together. D is least appropriate because it combines a discourteous, humiliating remark with shutting the defendant out without finding out whether relevant questions remain. A also stops questioning without finding out what is left, but without the humiliation. C gives more time without addressing the repetition. E costs everyone a second day for a problem that can be managed now.
Our own illustration in the JAC format, on a topic the JAC's ref 184 Deputy District Judge report names (a litigant in person taking too long with their cross-examination). It does not represent any JAC question or key.
FreeTests: Communication Skills · Personal Qualities · Effective Working
JAC Qualifying Test Practice · Free sample: 3 situational judgement questions: free sample
Answer 3 questions against the clock, like the real exam. You then see the right answer, the reason and your time on each. About 8 minutes · free · no sign-in.
3 questions to answer▶ Start nowThis one is free · no sign-in neededYour result shows how long each question took you.Worked item 2 (written by us, not a JAC question): a witness who cannot hear
- Situation: In a tribunal hearing, a witness tells you, after the first few questions, that she is hard of hearing and has missed parts of what was asked. She did not mention it before the hearing. Both parties are represented and want to finish today.
- A. Carry on, and ask the witness to say if she misses anything else.
- B. Pause, ask the witness what would help her follow (for example where people sit, speaking one at a time, questions repeated or written down), make the adjustments that can be made now and explain them to the parties, check that she can now hear and understand the questions, and put again any earlier questions she missed so she can confirm or correct her answers.
- C. Adjourn to another day so that professional communication support can be booked, without first asking the witness what she needs.
- D. Tell the witness she must listen more carefully, as the hearing has to finish today.
- E. Ask the representatives to speak louder for the rest of her evidence.
- Our key: most appropriate B, least appropriate D. B finds out what the witness needs, makes practical adjustments at once, keeps both parties informed, checks they work and revisits the questions she missed. If she still cannot follow, adjourning for suitable support would then be the right next step. D is least appropriate: it is discourteous, puts the burden on the witness and risks unreliable evidence. A leaves the problem with her and does nothing about the answers already given. C may become necessary, but deciding it without asking her is premature and costly. E assumes that more volume will help without checking her needs or whether she can follow, and does nothing about the questions already missed.
Our own illustration in the JAC format, on a theme the 2026 Recorder report names (reasonable adjustments for witnesses). The Equal Treatment Bench Book is the background reading for this kind of question. Our key, not the JAC's.
Assumptions to check before you answer
| Assumption | Why it tempts | What to weigh instead (our approach) | JSAF line |
|---|---|---|---|
| The most cautious action must be the most appropriate | Adjourning, referring on or waiting feels safe | What the delay costs the parties, and whether the problem can be dealt with fairly now | Effective Working: timely decisions |
| Help the litigant in person as much as possible | Fairness to someone without a lawyer | Explaining the process and making sure they can take part, without arguing their case for them | Communication Skills: proper participation; Personal Qualities: impartiality |
| Enforce the rule exactly as written, whoever the litigant is | Rules are rules | Identify the requirement in the question, explain it clearly, and consider any permitted discretion or adjustment. Do not assume a mandatory requirement can be relaxed | Communication Skills: authoritative and fair |
| A colleague's conduct is not my business | Collegiality, seniority, privacy | The Statement of Expected Behaviour says you may raise it informally with the individual if you feel comfortable, or with a leadership judge; formal routes also exist. Letting it pass is the weak option | Effective Working: challenge inappropriate behaviour |
| Hand every decision upward | Looks responsible | Which decisions are yours to make in the hearing, and where advice or a leadership judge is the right route | Personal Qualities: practical, common-sense approach |
| A quiet word with one party will settle it | Quick and kind | Avoid improper private discussions about the case with one party. Ordinarily deal with case matters with both sides able to take part; where a lawful exception allows a matter to proceed without notice, follow its safeguards | Personal Qualities: impartiality, propriety |
| The least appropriate is simply the weakest action | It looks like the opposite of the best | The likely consequences of each option: unfairness, discourtesy, concealment, inaction and delay can each be the most damaging, depending on the facts | All three areas |
| Answer from your knowledge of procedure | You know the rules of your court | The JAC says the test does not assess legal rules or procedures; judge how appropriate each action is | JAC practice tool page |
Our own approach, built on the JSAF, the Statement of Expected Behaviour and the JAC reports; not a JAC list. The JAC's Preparing for online tests page recommends the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Guide to Judicial Conduct as background reading when considering the most or least appropriate actions. They are background on judicial conduct and fair participation, not answer keys.
How to practise most and least
A practice routine (ours)
- Start with the JAC's practice tool. Five situational judgement questions in 10 minutes on the JAC software, as often as you like; your score is not recorded.
- Work at test pace. The JAC gives 50 minutes for the part, and its 2026 Recorder and 2025 Immigration and Asylum Chamber reports describe 20 questions: about 2.5 minutes a question (our arithmetic). The ref 184 Deputy District Judge test allowed 40 minutes. Check your own instructions.
- Review the most and the least separately. For each miss, note which choice you lost and which skill line decided the key.
- Keep a log of the assumptions you lean on. If you keep picking the cautious action or the strict one, you will see it after a few sets.
- Read the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Guide to Judicial Conduct with the questions you got wrong in mind.
- Finish your practice before the test. The JAC says: you must not use AI in any qualifying test, selection day or other live assessment, and do not enter any selection material into an AI tool (JAC AI guidance).
Our JAC qualifying test practice has full timed mocks in the JAC format: original situational judgement questions where you pick the most and least appropriate of five actions, marked one point for each correct most or least choice as the JAC practice tool describes, with the reason for every key and your marks grouped by skill area, plus a critical analysis part on an invented text. The keys are our own judgement, written to the JAC skills framework. Try 3 situational judgement questions free below. Independent practice. Not affiliated with the Judicial Appointments Commission. ProSyllabus is an independent study site; the JAC did not write and does not endorse our questions.
FreeTests: Communication Skills · Personal Qualities · Effective Working
JAC Qualifying Test Practice · Free sample: 3 situational judgement questions: free sample
Answer 3 questions against the clock, like the real exam. You then see the right answer, the reason and your time on each. About 8 minutes · free · no sign-in.
3 questions to answer▶ Start nowThis one is free · no sign-in neededYour result shows how long each question took you.Frequently asked questions
How is the JAC situational judgement test scored?
Each question has five possible actions. You choose the most and the least appropriate. The JAC says you get one mark for each correct choice, so two marks a question, and no marks for any other answer.
Can I get one mark if only one of my choices is correct?
Yes. Each correct choice earns its own mark, so a correct most choice with a wrong least choice, or the other way round, scores one of the two marks.
Is there negative marking?
The published wording awards one mark for each correct choice and no marks for other answers. It does not describe a deduction for a wrong answer.
What skills does the JAC situational judgement test assess?
At least Communication Skills, Personal Qualities and Effective Working, from the Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework for legal exercises launching after October 2025. Earlier exercises could use the Competency Framework or the JAC Skills and Abilities Framework. Your vacancy page names the framework for your role.
Do I need to know legal procedure for the situational judgement test?
No. The JAC says you will not be tested on legal rules or procedures; you are assessed on your ability to judge how appropriate different actions are.
How many questions are in the JAC situational judgement test?
The JAC general pages give 50 minutes for the part but no number of questions. Its 2026 Recorder and 2025 Immigration and Asylum Chamber reports describe 20 questions. Your exercise instructions are the final word.
What is a good score in the JAC situational judgement test?
There is no fixed pass mark: the shortlisting cut-off depends on the field and the places. The JAC says you need a minimum of 30% on both tests to be considered for the next stage; candidates are then ranked. For context, the situational judgement average was 57% in the ref 184 Deputy District Judge and 2025 Immigration and Asylum Chamber tests and 63.7% in the 2026 Recorder test, and the highest scores were 83%, 80% and 87.5%.
Who writes the JAC situational judgement questions?
Judges. The JAC reports describe questions from its approved bank, written by judges, and in some exercises new questions from drafting judges, all reviewed by the JAC Advisory Group and trialled in a mock assessment.
What should I read to prepare?
The JAC recommends the Equal Treatment Bench Book and the Guide to Judicial Conduct as background reading for the most and least choices, along with its practice tool and its evaluation and feedback reports.
Are your practice questions real JAC questions?
No. JAC test material is confidential. Our situations, keys and reasons are our own, written to the JAC description of the format and its skills framework.
More in this series
Sources
- official — JAC: Practice qualifying test tool (how most and least choices are marked)
- official — JAC: Qualifying test (skills the situational judgement test assesses, 50 minutes a part)
- official — JAC: About online tests (the 30% minimum)
- official — JAC: Scoring the online test (60/40 composite)
- official — JAC: Preparing for online tests (judicial conduct reading, feedback reports)
- official — JAC: Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework (JSAF), legal roles, published 29 July 2025
- official — JAC: Skills and abilities (the October 2025 framework change)
- official — JAC: Using artificial intelligence (AI)
- official — JAC: 00326 Recorder online qualifying test evaluation and feedback report (2026)
- official — JAC: 289 Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) online qualifying test evaluation and feedback report (October 2025)
- official — JAC: Deputy District Judge qualifying test evaluation and feedback report (ref 184)
- official — Courts and Tribunals Judiciary: Equal Treatment Bench Book
- official — Courts and Tribunals Judiciary: Guide to Judicial Conduct (revised July 2023)
- official — Courts and Tribunals Judiciary: Statement of Expected Behaviour
official = a document published by the conducting body. reported = a news or coaching site we could not check against an original. Where sources disagree this page says so rather than picking one.
