The Law Society has called for a judicial appointments process that would limit the involvement of the Government.
In its submission to Minister for Justice Alan Shatter, who is reviewing the judicial appointments system, the Law Society, which represents solicitors, recommended that "merit criteria" be applied to potential candidates.
This, it said, would be a guarantee that the most suitable candidates are selected – an approach that echoes recent calls by the judiciary itself that political discretion in the system of appointments should be reduced.
“The society is of the view that it is certainly arguable that the current system of judicial appointment does not enhance judicial independence or even preserve this principle in the eyes of society as there is little public accountability and transparency in the selection of judicial appointees,” it said in its submission to the Mr Shatter’s Judicial Appointments Review.
“The society considers that changes must be made to the system of judicial appointment to ensure that its framework guarantees and protects the fundamental principle of judicial independence; the most effective way of doing so is by strengthening the role of the JAAB [Judicial Advisory Appointments Board].”
This would be achieved through its examination of merit criteria and would include the requirement of detailed CVs, online preliminary testing, interviews, questionnaires on professional references and peer reviews in order to select the most suitable candidate.
Three candidates would result and be presented to the Government.
The Law Society recommended that the lay proportion of the advisory appointments board be increased from three to six members and that two solicitors also be appointed. It also calls for the introduction of judicial training.
The Bar Council, the barristers' representative body, set out concerns regarding the review process itself. It said the project of reforming the procedure for judicial appointments "should be co-ordinated and managed by an independent review group so as to ensure that the principle of judicial independence is respected".
In its submission, the Bar Council recommended that the advisory board should be the sole body for selecting candidates for appointment and that judges who would be placed in the High Court and Supreme Court should have a mandatory, appropriate knowledge of decisions, practice and procedure relating to those courts.
“The Bar Council recommends that JAAB be required to rank candidates for judicial office in order of merit,” it said.
“The workload of the JAAB is likely to increase substantially if it is to perform the additional recommended functions efficiently. The Bar Council believes that it is very important that the Board is adequately supported and funded to enable it properly to discharge these additional functions.”
The Free Legal Advice Centre (Flac) recommended that three suitable nominees be shortlisted and presented to the Government by an advisory appointments board comprised of 11 members, including four nominees of the presidents of the various courts and one each of the Bar Council and Law Society.
A further five would be nominated by the Government representing civil society and organisations with an interest in the justice system.
The membership of this board would be gender balanced and reflective of diverse Irish society.
Flac said a formal judicial training procedure should be developed for all levels of the judiciary, “including an introductory course and mandatory continuing professional development sessions”.
