Ms Mary Keane:

On the issue of academics, we see the four-year requirement as a barrier to entry. It is hoped that what is being put together here is a system of eligibility to apply. The procedures commission will set out all kinds of merit, criteria, professional skills, and other qualifications. Our view is that the broadest range of legal professionals should be able to access consideration for appointment. Therefore, we believe the four-year requirement should be removed. As the president, Mr. Cahill, has said, there is a particularly compelling argument for the appointment of academics to multi-judge courts, such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, where there could be a mix of academic and trial lawyers. They would bring different perspectives and enrich the decision-making process. That is our view on the point of academics.

There would have to be a definition of a legal academic and of an understanding of experience in law as opposed to experience in a court. England and Wales, very helpfully, introduced a provision, especially section 52, in the 2007 tribunals and enforcement Act. It provides for the eligibility of a broader number of academics compared with what is proposed here with, effectively, a four-year bar or barrier to their becoming eligible.