Judicial Appointments

[St Disibod]

On a differant thread:

maybe, the fact that the judiciary are selected from senior council biases them towards waffle and bull defences?

there is a strong case for an independent method of selecting the judiciary. Maybe emulate the French system of training magistrates from scratch and seperating the lawyers/barristers from the judges?

Our current method of appointing a judge requires the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board to select a load of "suitable" candidates- I think the number is seven. Ergo, the government of the day chooses the one with the best party credentials rather than the best person for the job. Given that many barristers with an exceptional grasp of the law have no interest in being judges, and plenty more with a questionable facility are very interested, the board often has to scrape the end of the barrel.

This system is obviously flawed. I propose two changes:

1) The board should select a single candidate- who they feel is the best for the job. Then the government would need a better reason to turn him down than the fact that his grandfather fought on the other side in 1922.

2) The proposed candidate should go to a cross-party grilling in the Seanad. Therefore the Dáil's minders can take ultimate responsibility and the whole process is taken out of the clandestine shade and can be shown on the Six-One news.

Any comments?

[Maximus]

The current system has served us well for years - if it's not broken why fix it?

[Libero]

The current system has served us well for years - if it's not broken why fix it?

Fianna Fáil does not equal the Irish people. Repeat X 10.

[Kerrygold]

Of course its flawed. PD member Brian Curtin was appointed while McDowell was Attorney General, even though there were serious doubts about his character in legal circles in Kerry.

[BarryW]

Given that many barristers with an exceptional grasp of the law have no interest in being judges, and plenty more with a questionable facility are very interested, the board often has to scrape the end of the barrel

The reason for this is simple: the top end of the legal profession are earning vast sums at the Bar. To take a seat on the Bench would involve a massive pay cut. I'm not sure what the figure is for Senior Counsel, but I do know that the top 10% of Junior Counsel earn €240k a year - more than the Taoiseach, and more than judges of the superior courts.
So you can just imagine what Senior Counsel are earning.

That's not to say that some excellent Barristers haven't foregone making a goldmine at the Bar for a seat on the Bench - Adrian Hardiman being the prime example.

1) The board should select a single candidate- who they feel is the best for the job. Then the government would need a better reason to turn him down than the fact that his grandfather fought on the other side in 1922

Getting the Board to chose a single candidate would be a very dodgy move - unless you somehow placed a statutory compulsion on the Government to accept their decision (which would possibly be unconstitutional anyway....)

If the Government chose to ignore "their" candidate, it would undermine the position of the chosen person, and the judiciary generally.

By the way - the Government does not give reasons as to why they chose/don't chose a particular person. And the media and Opposition have tended not to comment on judicial appointments (well, except for the Harry Whelehan disaster of course- but that was an exceptional case)

Murray was an odd choice for Chief Justice - but there was no media or Opposition criticism of it. It possibly boils down to a feeling that the Judiciary should be unblemished, and not descend into the grubby farce of US standards.

2) The proposed candidate should go to a cross-party grilling in the Seanad. Therefore the Dáil's minders can take ultimate responsibility and the whole process is taken out of the clandestine shade and can be shown on the Six-One news

Again, large scale constitutional reform would be needed to implement this. You seem to be proposing a US-style system of vetting judges, but there are big differences between our system and that of the US

1) The US Senate is infinitely more powerful than our Seanad. It is (arguably) as powerful as the US President, and when coupled with the House of Representatives it is defintely more powerful than him. This has been demonstrated twice in the last week alone (the Senate rejected the Patriot Act, and forced Bush into capitulation on the torture issue. And of more direct relevance was the Harriet Myers embarassment, inflicted on GWB by the Senate)

Our Seanad is stacked in favour of our Executive - so any Seanad grilling of Judges would be tokenism, and utterly pointless.

2) The US has a despicable, grubby, partisan attitude to the Judiciary. Every appointment is a matter of political decision-making, and judicial independence is but a fond memory. We are nowhree near that in Ireland, and any attempt to ape the awful US system should be avoided like the plague

[St Disibod]

The current system has served us well for years - if it's not broken why fix it?

I don't know about yourself, but I can spot a fair few flaws. Curtin is prime example, plus I'd have serious concerns over some of Judge Raymond Groarke's judgements. [I of course don't draw any comparison here- the problems associated with Curtin are far and away of a graver nature than Groarke]

I have no background in law, so the first I hear of a judge is in the Irish Times. I know I'd feel more comfortable if they were shown on TV to answer a few questions and respond to any concerns expressed about their suitability.

Chatterings in the Law Library are not an adequate substitute.

[CJH]

The US has a despicable, grubby, partisan attitude to the Judiciary. Every appointment is a matter of political decision-making, and judicial independence is but a fond memory. We are nowhree near that in Ireland, and any attempt to ape the awful US system should be avoided like the plague

Agreed. Despite what some posters appear to be suggesting, I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that most judicial appointments are purely or even largely political. Sure, Hardiman was a PD, but nobody denies he is a brilliant legal mind. There mightn't be many shinners or revolutionary socialists on the benches, but this stands to reason

[BarryW]

I know I'd feel more comfortable if they were shown on TV to answer a few questions and respond to any concerns expressed about their suitability

This would go beyond the farcical system in the US. Surely you're not serious?!

[St Disibod]

The Seanad wouldn't appoint the Judge- the President would continue to do so on the advice of the Government.

The whole point of my proposal is that if the Government wants to reject a nominee it would have to give a reason other than the fact that he or she doesn't tow the party line. Therefore their choice is to apoint the best person or be accused of sophistry.

The Seanad's role would simply be the right of a nod of approval or a note of objection. Even though the Government continues to win under this proposal- it takes the whole process out of the shade and should clean it up.

[BarryW]

it takes the whole process out of the shade and should clean it up

But you have yet to show what the problem is with the current system.

There is no evidence that there is any real political cronyism with regard to judicial appointments, and aside from the very rare bad egg (Curtin) there is no evidence that any portion ofjudicial appointments were not fit for Office.

When problems like these are pointed out to me, then we might find ourselves in agreement