I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (3) (a), lines 40 and 41, to delete "or a practising solicitor and has practised as a barrister or as a solicitor for at least ten years" and to substitute "who has practised as a senior counsel for not less than five years".
The whole tenor of my argument on the Second Stage of this Bill was that we were in favour of the creation of the post of Director of Public Prosecutions but that the person who would hold such an office should be a person of professional qualifications and experience. Here I propose the substitution of a senior counsel who has practised for not less than five years, but it would be my intention maybe on the Report Stage to add to that amendment "a practising barrister of not less than 15 years' standing." That just occurs to me now while I am on my feet. Section 2 reads:
(1) There is hereby established the office of Director of Public Prosecutions and the holder of the office shall be known as the Director of Public Prosecutions and is referred to subsequently in this Act as the Director.
(2) The Director shall be appointed by the Government.
(3) (a) A person shall not be appointed to be the Director unless at the date of his appointment he is a practising barrister or a practising solicitor and has practised as a barrister or as a solicitor for at least ten years.
The next subparagraph, (3) (b), is the one we find difficult to accept and difficult to comprehend in relation to the posts we are creating. We consider the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to be on almost all fours with the Office of the Attorney General. If the Office of Attorney General is to be held by a person who enjoys the esteem of the legal world and of his colleagues generally throughout the whole profession, be it a barrister or a solicitor, then legally the person enjoying the status of Director of Public Prosecutions should be a person eminent in the law and having the highest possible status both as regards respect and experience. What this Bill proposes to do is to appoint a civil servant to the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions who need not necessarily have ten years' experience at the Bar or indeed as a solicitor. That is why I consider the amendment to be the most important element in the whole series of amendments I have placed. This Bill stands or falls, as we understand it and as we want it, on the appointment of a senior counsel who has been practising for not less than five years, or we will concede that a barrister practising for not less than 15 years should be the person appointed as Director of Public Prosecutions.
This is no way to under-rate the contribution of solicitors to the practice of the law. Some people may ask: "Why not a solicitor in the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions?" The whole area of criminal law opens here. Criminal law is practised throughout the whole spectrum of the courts and requires a deep knowledge of the criminal law. The criminal law is practised in the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court and, in some instances, in the District Court but there must be a wide experience of that whole spectrum. If there is not that wide experience—and I think this would be conceded by the solicitors among us in the House—then, if we are to be consistent with the amendment, I do not think we can appoint a solicitor to be Director of Public Prosecutions. However, others may argue differently.
The person we regard as having this wide experience is a barrister who shares the respect and esteem of his colleagues, who has experience in the practice of the criminal law, who knows every nook and cranny, if you will forgive the crudity, of the whole structure of the courts system. That is the person we seek to have appointed as Director of Public Prosecutions. The Government or the Attorney General may have in mind a civil servant to appoint as Director of Public Prosecutions. What I am about to say now is in no way intended to under-rate the Civil Service: we believe that within the Civil Service there are men of the highest quality, integrity and so on, but we do not believe and we do not accept—we cannot accept—that there is a person practised in the craft of the criminal law sufficiently well qualified to take on effectively the criminal law functions of the Attorney General. We understand that the Attorney General will hand over his criminal law functions to a Director of Public Prosecutions, plus referenda and election petitions. If that is so, surely it becomes even clearer that the situation demands the equivalent of a person enjoying the esteem and status of the Attorney General. We would urge the Attorney General, therefore, to accept that this amendment is tabled purely in a spirit of construction and help and not in any spirit of acrimony. We did not table this amendment merely for the sake of tabling an amendment. I discussed this with various individuals interested in this and we arrived at a responsible decision, but the tabling of the amendment was my responsibility. If we are to have a Director of Public Prosecutions the appointee must be a person with a wide criminal practice, a wide knowledge of the criminal law and a wide experience in that law. We believe this is a reasonable proposition. I shall await the contributions of other members who may possibly wish to say something on this amendment.