Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

We believe there is a need to end the class bias within the Judiciary. It is deep rooted and will not be resolved by the Bill. It will make very small inroads into removing the more blatant elements of the making of political appointments to the Judiciary, but that is only a very small part of the issue. I read a comment somewhere which asked if the Bill was necessary. It was suggested political appointees were not a problem in the Judiciary. The point was made that the differences in judgments made by Fianna Fáil appointed and connected judges and those made by Fine Gael appointed and connected judges were analysed and that no differences were found in the judgments. I thought that dramatically missed the point. The point is not that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not disagree with each other because they do not generally disagree with each other on substantial points, even here, but that political parties, establishment political parties in particular, are vastly over-represented among the Judiciary. A study conducted in 2011 found that one in three of the judges surveyed had direct or indirect connections with political parties, a figure which is wildly out of step with that for the rest of society.

I make particular reference to the contribution made by Deputy Darragh O'Brien who stated:

The recent Jobstown trial in one of our courts, which I am allowed to comment on, was presided over by a judge. This is relevant to the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017. During that trial members of Solidarity-People Before Profit said publicly and in meetings held across the country and, in particular, in Dublin that they believed the jury selection was unfair, unconstitutional and illegal. They questioned the independence and relevance of the jury. They held public meetings all over the city and big posters were put up throughout Dublin to say that it was an unfair jury selection. They said that it was going to be a big divvy up and that there was a conspiracy in our courts and our judicial system that was stacked against them. That is a very serious charge from Members of the Dáil, but that is what they said. What happened when the jury of their peers acquitted them of the charges before them? It was all forgotten. That jury was absolutely grand and fine.

That was quite an incredible and an incredibly ignorant contribution from the Deputy. Unfortunately, it gets worse, but I will deal, first, with the points raised by him. The most basic initial research would have led him not to say what he said because it was not based on fact. The reality is that, yes, Jobstown Not Guilty campaigned against an attempt originally brought forward in a proposal made by the prosecution to stack the jury against us. It would have included excluding people from the Jobstown-Tallaght area, people who were active in campaigning groups, either for or against water charges, and people who had expressed themselves in public or on social media on issues concerning water charges. That was the proposal-----

See this speech in context