Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“PART 2

QUALIFICATION OF JUDGES

Qualifying legal academic

2. (1) In this Part, “qualifying legal academic” means a full-time, permanent member of the academic staff of an educational establishment mentioned in subsection (2) who has the qualifications mentioned in subsection (3).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “educational establishment” means—

(a) the Honourable Society of King’s Inns,

(b) the Law Society,

(c) a university to which the Universities Act 1997 applies, and

(d) an educational establishment providing education and training for the solicitors’ and barristers’ professions, as prescribed by the Minister on foot of recommendations made by the Authority pursuant to section 12 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a qualifying legal academic shall have qualified as a legal practitioner, whether or not that person has practised as a solicitor or as a barrister.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), legal practitioner has the meaning ascribed to it in section 2(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.”.

The purpose of the amendments is to introduce a route to qualification as a judge called "qualifying legal academic", that is, a full-time permanent member of the academic staff in an educational institution who has been there for not less than 12 years, to join the new eligibility category of solicitors to qualify for appointment as a judge, if the person displays the degree of competence and probity appropriate to and consistent with the appointment concerned.

It is hardly a secret that the amendment would have come from legal colleagues in the university rather than economists. They believe they have a case, although it might be opposed. Some people say legal academics should not be let near the courts as they could cause chaos. However, there is a level of competence and ability which might be of assistance in the appointment of members of the Judiciary and the amendment is proposed in that spirit. Is this a useful proposal as we plan the construction of the Judiciary? It is offered to the Minister of State in that spirit and I hope it will assist him. That is the reason it is being proposed.