Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I think it is a good amendment. We must put it in the context of what we are trying to achieve here.

One of the fundamental aims is that we would have a more diverse Judiciary. We do not want a replication of what was there previously, albeit appointed in a different way. We want those appointed judges to have a knowledge of the law. In that sense, it is eminently sensible that those legal academics who are trained in the law and its relevance etc. would not necessarily have to practice as barristers or solicitors before they are appointed as judges. If we insist on appointing those who have the practical experience, we are insisting that those in the system who have adapted to the norms of court life would assume the position of judge. That will not shake up anything at all.

We all agree that anybody put forward for the office of judge should know, understand and uphold the law, but he or she should not necessarily only come from that narrow legal circle. Whereas I would have the height of respect for a few, if maybe not all, barristers and solicitors, it is not an absolute necessity that they would all be practising previously. To have qualified is necessary, thereby demonstrating a knowledge of the law.

It is quite a subtle amendment but it contributes quite positively to what we want to achieve, which is the appointment of persons who are not clones of those who are there but who may have a broader world vision, who better reflect what life is like and who operate in dispensing justice in the public interest. It is a good one. I, certainly, will be supporting it. It is a positive measure for diversity.

See this speech in context