Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Eamon Ryan.

This Bill has been hugely controversial primarily because the impression has been given that one element of reform, namely, a lay majority on the JAAB, will be some kind of silver bullet which will magically transform our judicial system. There is no doubt that the Judiciary has been drawn from one cohort of Irish society and that it lacks diversity. The Bill addresses just one of a number of factors that require to be addressed if we are to overhaul the antiquated ways in which our judicial system works.

It is worth noting that the Judiciary itself has sought changes, as outlined in an article in The Irish Timesin 2014.

In a rare intervention, the judges - through a committee chaired by Chief Justice and including representatives of all court jurisdictions - are sharply critical of the “demonstrably deficient” system and say wide-ranging changes are needed to attract high calibre applicants..."It is increasingly clear that the relative success of the administration of justice in Ireland has been achieved in spite of, rather than because of the appointment system,” the judges argue.

However, I probably would disagree with Ms Justice Denham on the solution. One thing that can be guaranteed when it comes to any system reform is that there will always be resistance and that such resistance will usually come from insiders. We are not very good at creating new institutions. Our justice system is an inherited system and any reforms of many of our inherited systems have been piecemeal. We do not do radical reform.

While we in the Social Democrats do not believe the Bill is perfect, it is a move towards the kind of reform that is required to bring the judicial system out into the light and make it more accessible, more diverse and ultimately more fit for purpose in a modern Ireland. That said, the Bill requires significant amendment. The emphasis on the so-called lay majority has been a misrepresentation. The Bill sets out a mechanism for a committee of 13, the majority of whom shall be lay members with a lay chair. The way things are portrayed, however, gives the impression that the lay members are just randomers who will be picked off the street. I have a problem with the way section 15 is constructed. It is definitely one of the areas that needs amending. There are people working in the Legal Aid Board, legal academics, victims' advocates and many others from all walks of life who would have expertise in dealing with, for example, the outcomes of sentencing policy and who could offer some extremely useful input.

With the best will in the world, simply changing the system for how judges are appointed will not change how judges administer the law or affect sentencing outcomes, for example. A few years ago I attended the Irish Penal Reform Trust's annual lecture. The focus on that particular occasion was sentencing guidelines and the work of the sentencing council. I was shocked to note how well the UK system works and how well it is resourced when compared to ours. In the UK, ongoing training is the norm in order to ensure consistency in sentencing. There are ongoing efforts in that regard which are properly resourced. The speakers went through the methodology involved which was very impressive. It is recognised in the UK that one will not get consistency unless one puts a system in place. Consistency does not happen by accident. Once a rigorous system is in place, it matters less who is sitting in the judge's chair. Judges work within a proven system, thus removing the likelihood of random, inexplicable sentences or other decisions which are open to human error. The other interesting point I took from the UK example is the make-up of its sentencing council. This is a body with a number of non-judicial members, although not a majority of lay members. All members have senior roles in the field of justice. It was the opinion of the keynote speaker, Lord Justice Colman Treacy, that the breadth of viewpoints had enhanced the work of the sentencing council and it was quite interesting to hear that. We believe that some of the same will be true of the JAAB and so we will support this Bill on Second Stage. However, we do so with a serious caveat. We do not see the Bill as a panacea for fixing a system which urgently requires greater diversity and modernisation. There are several sections that require amendments.

It is important to note that the Judiciary has served us well. There is no doubt that there are many examples of good decisions but there are also many examples of poor decisions. We cannot have a blanket acceptance that every decision is good. Were that the case, we would not have miscarriages of justice or appeals lodged to decisions and so forth. That said, the Judiciary has largely been good.

We constantly argue that Second Stage should be based on the principle of the legislation and we resent the fact that very often the Government stops legislation from progressing beyond Second Stage to Committee and Report Stages. However, the shoe is on the other foot on this occasion, with the way things are panning out. This Bill is an example of legislation that can be improved on Committee and Report Stages. This morning, the Taoiseach said that the Government would be accepting amendments but then he qualified that remark quite quickly. There needs to be an openness to improving this legislation. The Government must be open to accepting what may be challenging amendments. The Bill went through the pre-legislative scrutiny process over quite a period of time. That process is one of the better examples of Oireachtas reform. Issues were highlighted during that process and quite a lot of expertise was built up during scrutiny which will be brought to bear in terms of tabling amendments. The Social Democrats will support the Bill on Second Stage.

See this speech in context