Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Ms McNally made a good point. It is good to see her today. We soldiered together for many years on the northern circuit. We were called to the inner Bar on the same day. She has described one of the big challenges facing us, namely, the extent to which the area that we are trying to diversify is itself diverse. It is not diversified in the first instance. Not everyone can be a judge. Judges are chosen from the ranks of solicitors, barristers or perhaps academics. We must ask how diversified that group is in the first instance, apart from the obvious categories of diversity.

I am glad to hear that Ms McNally is making strides with her work, but what about the representation among barristers and solicitors of those who attended non-private schools, or state schools, as they are called in England? A short generation ago, the vast majority of those in the High Court came from a few schools in Ireland. Until we address the issue at a more fundamental level, we are just tinkering with it. The actual raw material is not there to achieve the diversification that Ms McNally is trying to achieve. However, I commend her on the work she is doing.

Ms McNally stated that she would like a candidate to have experience in a court of limited or local jurisdiction, and to paraphrase her, if such a candidate has not worked as a barrister in those courts for 20 years, he or she will be out of touch with practice and procedure. However, that may close the door on senior lawyers- for example, senior counsels - coming down to enrich the Circuit Court, because they have not put a foot in the door for a number of years but did their time a while ago. Indeed, it has been a long time since we had a senior counsel appointed to the District Court. I believe the last appointment might have been that of Judge Desmond Zaidan, which is perhaps over 20 years ago. Those appointments are for prestigious positions that should be sought after. However, the appointment of senior lawyers to courts of limited or local jurisdiction does not happen at the moment.

I would like to hear the views of the academics on having a greater level of attrition. Apart from some noted exceptions, a judge does not normally move from the District Court to the Circuit Court to the High Court. Is that a good thing? Should it not be an incentivised attraction of appointment or is it a distraction for the judge in how he or she performs his or her duties? Has any work been done on levels of attrition? Would the academic witnesses be in favour of increased levels of attrition?

In respect of the superior courts, I am not saying there should be positive discrimination, but a candidate who has jury trial advocacy experience is very well positioned to hit the ground running and go into the Central Criminal Court for a trial on day 1. I believe a candidate who has never addressed a jury is at a disadvantage unless intensive training is provided although I am not saying it cannot be done. I take Ms Keane's point about academics. I believe they can enrich the court. Indeed, solicitors have enriched the court. The appointments of Mr. Justice Michael Peart and Mr Justice O'Donnell were fantastic. I believe they were the first solicitors to be appointed. I would be more in favour of academics in the divisional courts, be it in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, where perhaps they will not be found wanting in the experience of the cross-examination of witnesses of advocacy because that does not normally happen in those courts. I would like to hear the academics on that.

Finally, I do not support the decision made by the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, in respect of the pension. It is not a reality for some solicitors and barristers to take the plunge at the age of 50 to get the most out of that pension, which was a very attractive pension. It meant that we had great quality on the bench. If solicitors and barristers do not go at 50, they are not incentivised to go at 55 since the pension years were increased. Perhaps the learned chair of the Bar Association would know if there is any talk or speculation about increasing the age of retirement. We have lost some good judges. I am thinking about the last month. Mr. Justice McKechnie was in his prime and he has retired. The late Mr. Justice Kearney was a super judge and was a reluctant retiree. He was still in the full fettle of his mental and physical health at the time of his retirement. We lost him a few years early because judges had to retire for that reason. Is there talk or speculation of the retirement age in all the jursidictions increasing to 72 or 73 years of age?