Niall Collins
Question:4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to reform the judicial appointments process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5572/14]
View answerWednesday, 5 February 2014
Questions (4)
Oral answers (8 contributions)
The Minister is in the middle of a consultation phase at present, although I accept that this may have concluded on 31 January last. In view of the fact that there will be anything between ten and 15 retirements from the Judiciary during the coming year, will legislation to reform the judicial appointments process be brought forward? We discussed this matter in the House on a number of previous occasions.
The Deputy will be aware that, under the Constitution, judges are appointed by the President on the advice of the Government. The current process for the appointment of judges is set out in sections 12 to 17, inclusive, of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 which established the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. Under the existing system of judicial appointments, the board submits to me, as Minister for Justice and Equality, the names of the persons who have applied for appointment and whom it recommends as suitable for appointment. This procedure has been in place since 1995 and, at my request, my Department is undertaking a review of the judicial appointments process. This review will consider how best to ensure and protect the principle of judicial independence and includes consideration of issues such as the appointment process, eligibility criteria, the role of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and the need to promote equality and diversity.
In December I initiated a public consultation process which involved not only members of the Judiciary and the legal profession generally but also engaged the broader public who benefit daily in innumerable ways from the protection of an independent Judiciary. A number of submissions have been received to date and they will be considered within my Department and by me. The consultation process sought submissions within the current constitutional provisions. Any proposal to introduce a new system of appointments which would require statutory amendments would, of course, be a matter for consideration by the Government in the first instance.
As the Deputy may be aware, Deputy Shane Ross has published a Private Members' Bill relating to the system of judicial appointments. A debate on the Bill will afford a useful opportunity for Members of the House to discuss what they would consider to be an appropriate reform. It was always my intention that we would have such a debate after we had the opportunity to review the submissions received. Unfortunately, on the designated date for the discussion of Deputy Shane Ross’s Bill, 21 February, I will be in Greece on Government business in my capacity as Minister for Defence attending the informal Defence Ministers’ Council which is part of the Greek EU Presidency programme. Despite contact with the Deputy’s office with a view to changing the date for discussion of the Bill in order that I could be present to hear what Members had to say and participate in the debate, as of today I am disappointed to note that it has not proved possible to agree an alternative date for discussing the Bill, but I hope it will be possible to do so.
There is no doubt that all members of the Judiciary have acted independently since they were appointed. Nobody has ever offered to me, or anybody else of whom I am aware, any evidence that there have been examples of political bias exercised by members of the Judiciary. There is a debate around the appointments process. We need to look at it and possibly consider shortening the number of names that come from the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board to the Government for consideration. There is merit in that proposal.
When we discussed this issue last May, the Minister, rightly, made the point that up to two thirds of the Judiciary had no political affiliation. I do not think the debate should be crowded around the notion that, because somebody was politically affiliated at one point in his or her life, this should automatically disbar him or her. Are we to go down a road where it will be a crime to engage politically during one's life?
Am I right to suggest the Minister does not envisage any constitutional change in terms of the appointments process for members of the Judiciary and that, following his consultation and proposals, when published, the status quo will continue in terms of the Government asking the President to appoint? In other words, it will be a process of nomination by the Government but that the preceding process undertaken by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board will be looked at, revamped, modernised and made more fit for purpose.
The Deputy is right that we are not proposing any constitutional change. The great merit of the current position is that it is the Government or the Minister - it would end up coming to me, as Minister for Justice and Equality - who is ultimately accountable to the Dáil should an appointment be made that clearly is not appropriate. I want to repeat what I have said previously, that every appointment to the Judiciary made by the current Government has been of an individual furnished on the list provided by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board of appropriate individuals to be so appointed, or, alternatively, has involved the promotion from lower courts of other members of the Judiciary already appointed.
I have been reading the submissions as they have been coming in and found them very interesting, although there are some I have not yet had an opportunity to read. I note that members of the Judiciary in their submissions have stated that, despite their wish to see reforms implemented - they are addressing possible reforms - there is no evidence of any description since the foundation of the State that members of the Judiciary are politically partisan in any shape or form in the manner in which they determine proceedings. That is as it should be and as it has been. It is important, as the issue is discussed, that we look at how we modernise the system in a careful and responsible way to preserve judicial independence. However, I do not believe the debate should be contaminated by a suggestion that any current or past judge has ever, at any stage, made a decision based on a political commitment he or she may have had prior to his or her appointment to the Judiciary.
This is an insider's debate. This is not an issue people queue up in our clinics or stop us in the street to discuss. However, it is a very important one to try to uphold the independence of the Judiciary. For some-----
Will the Deputy, please, put his supplementary question as we are over time?
For some, there is a view that people who have a political affiliation are somehow fast-tracked. We need to find a mechanism to stamp this out.
With regard to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, I make the point that for the two judges who were removed and are no longer on the Bench, namely, former Judge Brian Curtin and former Judge Heather Perrin, no pre-screening process could have blocked out their activities. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board needs to be reformed to remove the perception that judicial appointments are fast-tracked politically.
Under the legislation in place since 1995, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board has had the capacity to interview applicants for judicial appointment. It has been said judicial appointments should only be made on merit. I totally agree and it has been my view for many years, well before I was appointed Minister. In government we have sought to make appointments based on merit. The capacity of an individual to act as a member of the Judiciary and his or her legal background are issues at which the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board can look based on the criteria for eligibility detailed. Even in the context of current legislation, it would be beneficial if arrangements were made by the board, where appropriate, to interview potential candidates for the Judiciary, as this would provide an additional insight. It would also be of assistance to lay members of the board who have no personal knowledge, generally, of any of the applicants, whereas members of the professions who sit on the board and the presidents of the courts may well know some of the applicants and what their capacities are when they appear in the courts system.
I thank publicly those who made submissions. I hope we can have a good discussion in the House on possible reforms before I proceed to make proposals to the Cabinet. Some reform in this area is in the public interest. I will come back to the issue.