Sir, – May I refer to the discussion of judicial appointments launched by the Minister for Justice and Equality? I was a little disappointed to read that, in their submissions, the Law Society and the judges (Home News, January 31st and February 3rd) had each proposed the retention of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, though with a reduction to three, in the number of candidates, from whom the Government would make its selection.
The Advisory Board has failed. Why not start afresh and, as in the UK or a dozen other countries, vest this most vital and politically delicate task in an independent body, made up of members, some nominated by the government, but others by additional, interested groups?
The response to such a suggestion made in the judges’ recommendation is that it would require a constitutional amendment. I agree, but surely an amendment of the Constitution is very apt in the present context?
First, apart from appointment, an amendment is probably necessary to safeguard the proposed establishment of a judicial standards and discipline board, which has been hanging fire, these many years. More important, it would be good to mark the significance of the judiciary by a suitable constitutional pedestal, designed for the 21st century; rather than the present provisions, which were inspired by the politics of the late 17th century. The attitude of “Yerra, ‘twill do” has not served us well in the past and will not do so in the future. – Yours, etc,
(Emeritus Professor),
DAVID GWYNN MORGAN,
Law Department, University College, Cork .