James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators. Amendments Nos. 11, 29, and 30 are being taken together. I will deal with amendment No. 29 first. Section 63 provides for the amendment of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, including the insertion of a new section 45A, to provide for the qualification of certain legal academics for judicial office as an additional basis for qualification. The new section 45A provides that a person who is a legal academic or is the head of a faculty in an educational establishment and has practised as a barrister or solicitor for at least four years shall be qualified for appointment and for nomination for appointment or election to judicial office. A legal academic is a person who is a permanent member of the academic staff in the field of law in a specified educational establishment, including a university, the King's Inns or the Law Society. Amendment No. 29 would delete all of the new section 45A, the effect of which is, of course, that a legal academic would not in fact be eligible for consideration for judicial appointment. This is a repeat of a Committee Stage amendment, as is the next amendment.

The Bill is significant in that it goes some way to extending the pool of eligible candidates for judicial appointment. District Court service will now qualify, as will employed barrister service. The third category the Bill extends eligibility to is legal academics. It is generally and widely recognised that legal academics are well placed to provide legal opinion across a range of matters. Many have a significant depth of knowledge and expertise in particular areas of the law. The new section 45A has been carefully drafted. First, the legal academic who is an applicant for judicial appointment must be of not less than 12 years' standing in that role and be currently employed in that capacity. The applicant must also be a qualified barrister or solicitor. The applicant must have practised as a barrister or solicitor for four continuous years and many, of course, will have more practice years than that. These are quite demanding requirements in some respects. As to eligibility, legal academics must be suitable in other respects, as the Bill requires, for example, on health grounds, compliance with regulatory law and be in a position to provide required information. As such, an applicant must undergo the selection procedures which we have seen, including a requirement to be interviewed by the commission. I cannot support that amendment. The requirements set out are quite exacting and I believe the addition, potentially, of the knowledge and expertise from the academic legal field in the court environment is a significant and important addition to eligibility.

The Senator's amendment, No. 30, also amends section 63, specifically new section 45A, dealing with legal academics. As I indicated in respect of the previous amendment, the legal academic who is an applicant for judicial appointment must be of not less than 12 years' standing in the role and currently employed in that capacity. Additionally, the applicant must also be a qualified barrister or solicitor and must have practised as a barrister or solicitor for four continuous years. Many, of course, will have more practice years than that. The Senator's amendment would retain the possibility of legal academics being considered for judicial appointment but only if the applicant, along with 12 years' standing as an academic, also has ten years' practice as a barrister or solicitor. The Senator might accept that there is a logic to extending the eligibility criteria to legal academics, but to extend to ten years the requirement to have previously practised on a continuous basis for four years would appear problematic and even unreasonable. Four years' practice as a legal professional strikes the proper balance between the competing experiences and practice required in this context. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment. I add that an applicant will be required under selection statements to demonstrate he or she has undergone professional development or training relevant to the role of a judge.

Amendment No. 11 is related. It amends section 12 by deleting subsection (4). Section 12, we might recall, provides for the arrangements for nominating Judicial Council members. One criterion for nomination is that one nominee will have practised as a barrister and one will have practised as a solicitor. As we have seen while discussing new section 45A, it provides for recognition of certain legal academics in terms of qualification for judicial appointment. Section 12(2)(b) is therefore a technical provision that makes it clear, in the context of the nomination of Judicial Council members to the commission, that qualification as set out under section 45A will apply to such nominations. Therefore, I do not support this amendment, as I do not support the removal or deletion of the new qualification arrangements for certain legal academics under the Bill.