Sir, - Barristers engaging in theatrics and smutty jokes at the Flood Tribunal; solicitors refusing to respect their own complaints procedures; the actions of judges in the Sheedy controversy; all these have focussed attention on the legal system, which remains the most elaborately archaic branch of the State. This might be mildly amusing were it not a fact that our judges are selected from the ranks of the legal profession.
At one time judges were appointed by means of a secret informal process in which, as Gallagher correctly noted, "a record of sympathy with the government of the day was an important factor". In order to create a pretence that appointments were made on merit the Government established the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB) to identify persons and inform the Government of their suitability for judicial office. The JAAB is composed largely of judges and lawyers and its creation does not represent a radical change in the appointments system. It is obliged to submit at least seven names for each vacancy and, on request from the Minister for Justice, the names of all who applied for a position. The power of appointment remains where it always has been, in the hands of the Minister.
In 1996, the Minister established a working group to consider the qualifications necessary for judicial appointments. The group was largely made up of lawyers, 90 per cent of submissions made to it were from judges and lawyers and it took more than two years to report. The deliberations of the group boiled down to a battle between barristers and solicitors, the former supporting the status quo, which ensures that the vast majority of senior judicial vacancies are filled by members of the Bar, while the latter sought a larger share of the cake. The appointment of academic lawyers appears to have been considered and rejected by the group. No consideration was given to the creation of a career judiciary, a common feature of European legal systems.
The sheer pomposity and arrogance of the Bar's submission was breathtaking. It argued, inter alia, that "the tasks of the judges [are] closely allied to those of the barrister. . . and. . .the qualities required [are] very similar". Their submission continues: "it is entirely unremarkable. . .that successive generations have considered that. . . practice at the Bar is an extremely valuable. . . training for judicial appointment and it can be acknowledged. . . that the country has been well served by judges of integrity and ability drawn exclusively from the rank of practising barristers."
The system of judicial appointments is in need of radical reform. It is totally unacceptable that the majority of senior judges should be selected from a small elite group (numbering about 150, according to the Bar) whose lifestyle and background does not mirror that of the general community. It is unacceptable, furthermore, that members of that same elite should play a major role in the appointment of judges. - Yours, etc., Larry Power,
Wyndham Lawn, Ballincollig, Co Cork.