Ross reform plan on judges welcome
IN an interview with The Parchment, the magazine of the Dublin Solicitors Bar Association, Mr Justice Peter Kelly, the then head of the Commercial Court, said in 2012 that there should be an independent body to appoint judges. At that time, the judge, who is now President of the High Court, claimed that some people who would have made excellent judges were “passed over” in favour of others who were not so well qualified. “It’s purely political in any event,” he said with reference to appointments to the Supreme Court.
More recently, Mr Justice Kelly has led the charge in opposition to the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2016, what has been described by solicitors as a forwardlooking, inclusive and contemporary approach to reform of the judicial selection system as championed by Shane Ross, Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.
However, the High Court President has described the proposed legislation as “ill-conceived, ill-advised” and said that it was being processed with “undue haste”. In fact, reform of the judicial selection process in Ireland has been under discussion since 2013, so if anything we would contend that it is beyond time the issue of judicial selection reform was dealt with. The proposed legislation is not a panacea for all ills in the selection process. It still leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the government of the day, for example, but the selection of judges would no longer be so “purely political” under the proposed legislation and that is to be welcomed.
Indeed, the proposed legislation is to be more broadly welcomed as a latest step in long, overdue reform of the appointment of judges, not least because its intention should increase the diversity of the judiciary to include the appointment of more women, legal professionals from all backgrounds and, in general, more candidates from wider social and geographical origins.
The proposed reform is being strongly resisted by the Association of Judges of Ireland, the mandate of which includes the protection and enhancement of judicial independence, the improvement of the administration of justice and the promotion of a better public understanding of the role played by the judiciary both within the justice system and as an arm of government. It is also being opposed by the Bar Council of Ireland, the representative body for barristers practising law, from whose membership judges have been usually selected. The concerns of these bodies should be noted, in so far as that is practicable. However, it should also be noted that the Law Society of Ireland, the representative and regulatory body of solicitors, has broadly welcomed the proposed reform.
The proposed Judicial Appointments Commission will accommodate representatives of the legal profession and increase to a majority lay or non-legal representatives, including the chairperson. These will be capable people of high standing and more representatives of civil society, including those with experience of victims’ groups, diversity, equality, mediation, corporate governance, human rights and other important non-legal interests. This has been unfairly criticised by no less a figure than Michael McDowell, the former attorney general and justice minister, currently a senator and practising barrister, as “some kind of tokenistic dumbing down process in pursuit of some elusive form of political correctness”. Mr McDowell could never be accused of ‘political correctness’ but we think he doth protest too much and too intemperately. The reforms proposed by Mr Ross will, we believe, enrich the judiciary with the additional talents, skills and insights which are required, and are to be welcomed. The Judicial Appointments Commission Bill should be passed into law with all urgency.