I would like to say that the case put forward last night by the Minister and the Attorney-General has not impressed me in the least. Neither have I deviated from the attitude I took up yesterday towards the provisions of this section. I do not wish at this stage to go over the case I made last night except to say that I feel that if a case can be made, as was made last night, for the continuation in service of district justices who have reached age of 65, it would be much better if we set down a definite age limit of 70 or 72. We have provision here enabling a district justice to be continued in service until he is 66, 67, 68 or 69. Are we to take it then, as was suggested last night, that when a man reaches 65 it depends on him whether he is capable of filling his high office until he is 72 or 73?
This committee, even if they are satisfied that a person is capable of carrying on past the age of 69, cannot lay that down. A case was made for the extension of the age limit to 70 because judges of the High Court are not caused to retire until the age of 70 or 72. I would prefer if provision were made for the continuation in service of the people to whom this Bill applies until they reach the age of 70 with the safeguard of having a committee to consider the question of their retirement when they reach the age of 65. While I am not prepared to go so far as giving a definite expression of view, it is quite possible that if the same rule were applied to people of the age of 65 or 55 as will be applied to district justices of the age of 65, many of them would come into the category of people who should be retired. If that is the case, I think that with this Bill before us we could do a tremendous amount of good by setting up a committee which would have the function of examining, any time that the question might arise through ill-health or other causes, whether circumstances would warrant the retirement of a justice and which would have the power to retire him. It could also have the power to add the years to his service if necessary so as to give him the pension he would have if he served his full term. It would be much better in the interests of justice and of the people as a whole if a man who was not capable of carrying on were retired, even if it cost the State a considerable sum to do that, and if a person capable of doing the work were put in his place.
The case which has been put before us by the Minister does not satisfy me that a proper approach has been made to this question. In the case of district justices, as in every other line, there are people who, when they are retired, are quite capable and fit to fill the post. But as the years go by and sometimes as a result of cases brought on not altogether by their own assistance, they may not be people who, in the best interest of justice and of respect for the law, should occupy such a high post.
It would be well if some system of appointing these persons were set up, if the appointments were made through the Appointments Commission or some other system of that kind. Some consideration should be given to the man's approach. In reading the papers from time to time, we are often dissatisfied at reading statements and approaches of district justices to the people appearing before their courts. In the interest of justice and of respect for the law, a man appointed to such a high position should, by the dignity of that office, rather create respect than, as often is the case, by the treatment meted out sometimes to the lawyers, sometimes to the witnesses, cause something which does not uphold the respect that should be given to our courts.
I was inclined to put down an amendment to this section on the lines I have outlined—that the terms of years be increased to seven, that the committee be as it has existed and that the committee have power to retire a person even at 40 or 45 if, in their opinion, the best interests of law and of justice would be served by doing so, regardless of cost to the State.
