Dáil debates

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

 

3:10 pm

Photo of Donnchadh Ó LaoghaireDonnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 23, to delete line 37, and in page 24, to delete lines 1 to 11 and substitute the following:"(3) Subsection (1) shall only apply to a legal academic who has qualified as a barrister or solicitor and subsequent subsections of this section, in so far as they relate to a person who is referred to in them as a 'head of a faculty' or 'head of another faculty', shall not be construed as enabling such a person to be the subject of such an appointment unless the person has qualified as a barrister or solicitor.".

This amendment relates to the requirement that a legal academic must have had continuous practice of four years to be considered for appointment. While it is important to ensure there is considerable legal experience involved, this requirement is too restrictive. While someone might have qualified, he or she might not have practiced in four continuous years. This raises a number of considerations. Generally, we should be more open to considering the appointment of legal academics, in particular, to some of the Superior Courts where the issues might be more technical or abstract and where academic experience would be beneficial. People with academic experience are considered in other jurisdictions for appointment. Provided that someone has qualified as a barrister or a solicitor and provided that he or she qualifies in every other respect and is a fit and proper person with good experience and knowledge of the law to serve in such a position, it makes sense that he or she should be considered for appointment. I also take into account the fact that the current provision might have implications for those who might have left practice for a period, for example, female barristers who have taken leave of absence at various points for family reasons. That is the general approach in other jurisdictions and it is one which makes sense and should be taken into account. For these reasons, I have brought forward the amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.