Vol. 428 No. 5
8 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Justice the number of Circuit Court and High Court judges currently sitting in this country; her views on whether there is now a case for the appointment of additional judges at both Circuit Court and High Court level having regard to the delays in bringing cases to trial; whether there is a need to change the criteria for the appointment of persons to be judges; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
51 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice the way in which judges are selected; whether there is any independent assessment of candidates for the Bench; whether any training is given to those appointed; and the changes, if any, which are proposed.
55 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Justice if she intends to review the way in which judges are appointed; and if she will ensure that refresher courses are provided for judges on a regular basis.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 51 and 55 together.
Apart from the number of judges currently sitting, there are two issues here — first the method whereby individuals are selected for membership of the Judiciry and, second, the training provided for those who join the Bench.
I shall deal with these separately but it is appropriate first to acknowledge the context in which the questions arise. They arise against a background where certain court decisions have given rise to public unease. While it is understandable that such questions should arise at this time, I think it necessary to make the point that the number of court decisions which give cause for public concern is quite small — for every decision of this kind there are thousands which are delivered without controversy or any cause for controversy.
It is also necessary, I believe, to make the point that there is no guarantee that different selection methods — or indeed training courses — for judges would guarantee an end to controversial decisions. People in all walks of life, even those who have been through the most rigorous training and selection processes, make decisions from time to time with which others strongly disagree.
Judicial appointments are, in accordance with the Constitution, made by the President on the advice of the Government. The Constitution also provides that the terms of appointment of judges shall be regulated by legislation. The relevant legislation does not provide for any outside agency to assess candidates for appointment to the Bench and I have no proposals at present for the introduction of amending legislation which would provide for such assessment.
Our system of recruitment to the Judiciary is based on the idea of bringing in people who are experienced and trained practitioners. The formal qualification required for appointment as a District Court judge is not less than ten years practice as a barrister or solicitor; for appointment to the Circuit Court, it is ten years practice as a barrister and for appointment to the Supreme Court and High Court, 12 years practice as a barrister. To become a barrister or solicitor in the first place requires successful completion of a course of study laid down by the qualifying authorities. The periods of practice prescribed are the minimum and most persons appointed have considerably more experience.
Although the emphasis is on the need to select people who have the necessary legal qualifications, the Government — all Governments — also naturally take account of the suitability generally of the individuals recommended for appointment. No Government will advise the President to appoint somebody who is manifestly unsuitable for Judicial office. Some who are recommended for appointment subsequently make controversial decisions but, as I say, there is no guarantee that this would be avoided simply by changing the selection method.
As regards training courses for judges, the scope for the exercise by me of initiatives in this area is quite limited having regard to the constitutional independence of the Judiciary. I am of course aware of suggestions to the effect that legal training and expertise, which, as I have explained, is a precondition to appointment in all cases, is not enough and that specialists in other fields should have an input to judicial training. I know that the Judiciary are also aware of these suggestions and I wish to confirm that I am certainly willing to assist in any way I can with initiatives which the Judiciary may wish to bring forward now or in the future in this regard.
There are 17 High Court judges, including the President of the High Court, and 18 Circuit Court judges, including the President of the Circuit Court, serving at present.
A review of the activity levels in the High and Circuit Courts, to assess the impact on those courts of the alteration in the court jurisdiction levels introduced by the Courts Act, 1991, is almost completed. When I have the full findings of the review before me, I will be in a position to recommend any reallocation of resources which may be warranted to the Government. Comment by me on the numbers of judges required in each court, in advance of the completion of the review, would be inappropriate.
Despite the Minister's long reply, she has not answered my question, the reason for which was not, as she suggested, recent controversial decisions or that I believe in the necessity for training judges. However, I asked the Minister if she agrees that there is an urgent need for more judges because it takes one and a half to two years for a case to reach the Circuit Court and two years or more or reach the High Court. I accept that some Circuit Court judges work very late and have a better record than others but it is a disgrace that civil actions take so long to come to trial. That is why there is an urgent need for more judges.
Will the Minister also agree that it is necessary to change the criteria in regard to the appointment of solicitors? It is wrong that solicitors can be appointed only as District Court judges. There are outstanding solicitors and, therefore, the prohibition in the Courts Act, 1936, should be removed so that solicitors can be appointed to the higher courts on a case by case basis. Given the difficulties experienced by the Law Society recently and the professional way in which it handled those difficulties, will the Minister consider, as a symbolic gesture to solicitors who have done outstanding work, removing the prohibition and appointing a solicitor to the Circuit Court and the High Court in the foreseeable future? I would like to hear the Minister's view on that. Has she received a submission from the Law Society in this regard and, if so, has she considered it?
The delays in regard to the hearing of civil actions which the Deputy mentioned are not always court related. In many cases, particularly in the case of personal injury, they are not proceeded with or, indeed, are adjourned at the request of the legal team on one side or the other.
I share Deputy Harney's view in regard to the appointment of solicitors. The Law Society recently sent a submission to my Department in relation to the appointment of solicitors to the courts and I will be taking that into consideration.
