Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support the Senator's amendment. I notice that the structure of section 46(1) requires a tiny bit of care. It states:

Subject to section 60, the Commission shall consider applications made in respect of a particular vacancy in a judicial office in accordance with the judicial selection statement and shall not recommend an applicant to the Minister or, if appropriate, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for appointment or for nomination for appointment or election, as the case may be, to judicial office unless— (a) it is satisfied [of the matters set out in the subparagraphs to paragraph (a)] .... and

(b) the Commission has interviewed the applicant.

I am slightly concerned that if the commission decides not to interview an applicant, that is it, in effect - the applicant is out. It is a strange way of dealing with it. Someone who applies for the job and could satisfy all of the criteria in paragraph (a) can effectively be sidelined by not being invited to interview and therefore would not be recommended. For someone who wants the job, to say to them "because we did not want to hear from you and did not want to talk to you, that is the end of you" is a somewhat strange outcome. I know we are dealing with different courts. It is highly unlikely that the members of the commission would have personal knowledge of the range of people who might apply to be a judge of the District Court. It is unlikely they would know them all. I speak from my experience of being on the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board when I was Attorney General.People were applying who we did not know at all. We had no personal knowledge of them and we were simply dealing with a paper process rather than an interview process. It occurs to me that is one situation but in a situation where, for instance, eight High Court judges apply to be considered for appointment to the Court of Appeal, how will the commission say we will only interview three, four or five of them and have the others immediately sidelined and put out of the running, without even having been heard? From the point of view of the lay members of the commission, who will not know superior court judges at all, to have a situation where some of them do not even throw a dice of six to start and are out of the process, even though they are eligible on all of the criteria in respect of section 46(1)(a), seems to be misconceived. I ask the Minister of State to explain why the commission should be able to knock somebody out without even hearing them in the whole process.