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

I have five minutes in which to speak but I probably spent in excess of five hours speaking to the previous legislation that sought to resolve these matters. There are differences in the detail of the Bill but there is a consensus that the process for appointing judges must be radically transformed. It is a matter that has been debated in these Houses for approximately 20 years.

The appointment of judges carries enormous weight and consequences and we must only consider the intensely political nature of the appointment of judges in the United States to understand the significance and weight of the decisions, particularly for superior courts. It is not a good model by any manner of means. The process has major implications for individuals and their liberty, as well as victims and their families. It also has significant implications for how the laws we pass and the Constitution are interpreted, the philosophy that is taken and any other amount of factors. It is vital that we get the appointment of judges right.

Our Constitution gives power to the Government alone to appoint judges. There is a bit of a contradiction in that there is a political consensus, at least rhetorically, that we want our Judiciary to be as independent as possible. We also want the process of appointing those judges to be as independent as possible.

The best we can do, and what various pieces of legislation that have not ultimately come to fruition have attempted to do over the course of the years, is to try to tighten the frame in which Government can make those appointments, not to, I suppose, create a specific obligation on the Government to a particular judge but to try to constrain the space that exists. I recognise this legislation attempts to do that. There are areas in which we would like to see improvement. It is still my view a lay majority and a lay chair are best. I am absolutely of the view that we cannot stand still on this. We cannot allow this debate to continue perpetually. I would say the process in place currently is probably one of the weakest in Europe at this time. It is undoubtedly the case that appointments to the superior courts have been, at the very least, perceived to have been political. It is important we remove that perception and ensure the process is seen to be as objective as possible.

I welcome that we are moving in the right direction. Deputy Kenny has talked about amendments we will be tabling. It remains my view a lay majority would be much more preferable. On the nature of the laypeople, it is important they come from a diverse set of backgrounds to ensure the people feeding into this process are as representative as possible, because it will have huge implications for us all. I also want to touch on the fact this was a large area of discussion during the course of the previous Government. The whole area of judicial reform is not only limited to appointments. I welcome the passage of the Judicial Council Bill in recent years. Certainly, it was a majority priority for us. The Government at the time was relying on our support. We were keen to ensure we proceeded with the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, but we also needed to proceed with the Judicial Council Bill. It needed to be given high priority.

A significant part of that was ensuring our sentencing law was reformed. It was on the back of engagement between me and the then Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, that for the first time, a sentencing guidelines committee was to be established within the judicial council. That is a very significant step, the implications of which we will see over the course of the coming years as sentencing is created for all manner of offences, and rightly so. As I impressed upon the then Minister, Deputy Flanagan, we saw that when sentencing guidelines were introduced in Britain, adherence to those guidelines was very strong indeed. Consistency improved significantly. It is the case there is sentencing in this State that is inconsistent, inadequate and sometimes, frankly, inappropriate and not fitting to the kinds of crimes committed. I know the sentencing committee is in the course of being established and initial steps have been taken. I look forward, over the course of the coming time, to the Judicial Council and the committee addressing those issues with sentencing to ensure we have fair and consistent sentencing for crime in this State.

See this speech in context