The Gazette 1996

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1996

GAZETTE

James Nugent:

amendment on this every speaker from every political party expressed the view, based on the public interest that there should be a far wider pool of lawyers available for selection to the higher courts, that doesn't mean automatically that any particular solicitor or barrister is going to be appointed unless they're suitable.

unique about the training of a barrister which says that a barrister has some superior knowledge to allow a barrister to adjudicate and sit in judgement on particular cases in any court and indeed. . . .

Alan, there has not been a debate on this for a number of years, the . . . sorry. . . the Bill. . .

David Hanly:

David Hanly:

Well the debate that must ensue, James Nugent , I'm afraid will have to take place in another forum because we have run out of time. I want to thank you both, James Nugent and Alan Shatter.

The Bar Council maintains there is, you just heard James Nugent make that very point.

David Hanly:

No, but will the Minister accept it do you think now?

Alan Shatter:

•

It is, and it's an extraordinary claim because for every court case that's heard in every court, including the High Court and Supreme Court, there's not just a barrister or two barristers in court, there's always a solicitor there. Solicitors frequent the courts, and to use the phrase James uses, spend lifetimes in the courts, and are just as familiar with the Bar Library as to how the courts operate as are barristers. Indeed David the point that I've been making on this is that we inherited a legal system from the British and the exclusive monopoly for members of the Bar Library to be appointed to the High Judiciary, is really just a relic of British colonial rule, it's a relic that's been thrown off in other countries. For example, in Australia solicitors, barristers, all practising lawyers, are eligible for appointment to the highest courts and indeed have been appointed to the Supreme Court.

Alan Shatter:

Nine O'Clock News - RTE 1 TV - 7 December 1995

And certainly the Minister listened very carefully to the views expressed, the Legislation Committee is a Committee set up to allow members of the Oireachtas to contribute to the legislative process, I'd be extremely surprised, having heard the views expressed, if the Minister didn't come back into the Committee and indicate movement on the side of Government to allow this Bill to be amended.

The Government's concessions on the solicitor judges issue, announced hy the Minister for Justice to the Dail Committee, was the fourth item on the Nine O'Clock News. An abbreviated transcript of the TV news report follow s.- Bryan Dobson (presenter): The Minister for Justice has introduced an amendment to the Courts and Court Officers Bill to allow solicitors here to become judges of the High and Supreme Courts. Up to now these positions have been open only to barristers. Nora Owen, TD (Minister for Justice): I am going as far as I feel it is necessary to go in this legislation to give some consideration to what the deputies here from all parties have said. Derek Cunningham (reporter): Tonight, while the Bar Council said it welcomed what it termed the caution and prudence of the Minister in deciding not to allow solicitors to be directly appointed to the higher courts, the Law Society accused her of not going far enough. Ken Murphy (The Law Society): The Government missed an opportunity to greatly widen the pool of legal talent and expertise from which judicial appointments can be made. Derek Cunningham: However, both sides were able to welcome a commitment by the Minister to

David Hanly:

And if she does, James Nugent, going back to you, what action will the Bar Council take?

James Nugent:

Oh well there's no, I mean the Bar Council is no different than any other person in the State. . . .

David Hanly:

David Hanly:

Alright. Not I want to ask you a final question Alan Shatter and then I'll go back to James Nugent, do you think that the Minister will now change it? The word coming through is that she may.

You'll accept it.

James Nugent:

But wouldn't it be an extraordinary thing David that so fundamental a decision should be made on the basis of an amendment proposed two days ago and a decision made in that time, without any chance for a debate, for proper representations, we. . . .

Alan Shatter:

Yes, well firstly this decision is going to be made today. We had a unique situation in the Joint Committee. . . .

David Hanly:

Alan Shatter:

Yes.

But James, there's been a debate on this for a number of years, this is not a new issue.

Alan Shatter:

. . . . where following my tabling an 14