Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 119:

In page 28, lines 6 to 9, to delete all words from “has—” down to and including “procedure,” and substitute “has an appropriate knowledge of the decisions”.

This group of amendments relates to a requirement in the Bill that a recommendation for appointment to the higher courts - the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court - only be made if the candidate has an appropriate knowledge and experience of these courts. The Law Society of Ireland, among others, thought this was an unnecessary provision to include in primary legislation. It is not a requirement to be met in terms of eligibility for appointment to the District Court or the Circuit Court. The legislation provides for the commission to set out detailed eligibility criteria, including a statement of skills and attributes for appointment to each court. For reasons of diversity, it would probably be better if the eligibility criteria under that heading were set out by the commission rather than in primary legislation as it would facilitate greater access.

Judicial appointments are currently open to barristers and solicitors, but the bulk of them are made from the barrister profession. Only eight solicitors have been appointed to the superior courts since solicitors became eligible in 2002 for such appointment. No solicitor has been appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court and no female solicitor has been appointed as a judge of the superior courts, in spite of the fact that 51% of the membership of the Law Society of Ireland are females. There have been 90 appointments since solicitors became eligible for appointment, but only a handful have made it through, with solicitors constituting only 8% of the membership of the superior courts, even though 80% of legal practitioners in the State are solicitors. That cannot be reconciled with the public interest or the desirability to have a broadly experienced Judiciary which is reflective of the community it serves. It is too narrow. Why would this be provided for in legislation?

A small effort to draw in solicitors is made in subsection (5). However, that effort is minimal. Clearly, solicitors are pegged below barristers in the sense that personal conduct at proceedings can be taken into account by a relevant committee which would favour barristers. It also references practice and knowledge of procedure in the courts. It is necessary to have rules on eligibility and experience, but it would be far better to leave it to the Commission to outline in its statement on skills and attributes, as in the case of appointments to the lower courts. That would be better with a view to encouraging diversity. That is the intention behind the amendments.