29 / 448
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1996
colleagues before finalising that
section of the Courts and Court
Offices Bill which covers this
particular issue. This follows
Tuesday's all Party support for
amendments to the Bill which
would open the higher benches to
solicitors. The Bar Council has
reacted strongly, urging the Minister
not to amend the Bill and calling for a
debate. So let's have a debate right
now.
Alan Shatter
TD, who proposed
one of the amendments, is in studio,
and on the line is
James Nugent
of
the Bar Council. Good morning to
you both. Now first of all
James
Nugent
, why shouldn't solicitors
become High Court and Supreme
Court judges? If you could make it as
brief as possible.
James Nugent: (Bar Council)
Well I was just going to say you
called for a debate David and in the
time available we won't be able to
have that. But very briefly, what we're
talking about here isn't whether
solicitors or barristers should or
shouldn't do anything, we're
talking about the administration of
justice, of peoples' rights, who is to
determine even their right to life as we
saw in the 'X' case and the girl who
was in the near vegetative state, we're
talking about rights to liberty. Now
what is the best possible training for
the person who is to determine those
rights? That's what we're talking
about when you're talking about the
higher courts, and I believe that the
best possible training for somebody
who is charged with that awesome
responsibility is somebody who has
spent a lifetime involved in the work
of the courts on a daily basis.
David Hanly:
So what you're saying in effect, if I
may put it rather more bluntly than
you did yourself, is that solicitors are
not up to it.
James Nugent:
Ah no David
David Hanly:
Well by training they're not.
James Nugent:
I don't want to in any way, I have a
huge admiration for the solicitors'
profession, I should add I am married
to a solicitor, my mother was a
solicitor, and I'm not in any way
trying to denigrate them, but what I
am saying is that our job, and our
training and our daily life, it is
conducive to leading on to what is an
awesome responsibility, that is being a
judge of the High or of the Supreme
Court.
Alan Shatter TD
David Hanly:
And you say that that doesn't amount
to not being up to it where solicitors
are concerned.
James Nugent:
Well I don't, I mean not being up to it
seems to imply that solicitors are
some way deficient, there are splendid
people, you know, you are as splendid
at your job but I do not think that it
would be appropriate that you would
be appointed to the High or the
Supreme Court.
David Hanly:
Nor do I but I'm not a lawyer at all.
James Nugent:
No, but you see for a job like this you
have to have, I mean it can only be
someone who is homed in the fire of
court day after day who should at the
end of their process be put in the
position of having to adjudicate on
literally matters of life and death.
David Hanly:
Alright, well let me put that straight
now to
Alan Shatter,
who as I said
was one of those who proposed one of
the amendments and who has accused
you of wishing to protect your patch
and holding on to what he calls
colonial law. These are harsh
criticisms
Alan Shatter,
what do you
make of what
James Nugent
has just
said?
Alan Shatter:
Well firstly I'm not going to in any
way personally attack James, good
morning James, we know each other
for many years.
James Nugent:
Good morning Alan, indeed.
David Hanly:
This is far too cosy.
Alan Shatter:
I'm afraid I don't accept anything that
James though is saying on the issue.
Since 1971 solicitors have had a right
of audience in all our courts from, all
the way through from the District
Court to the Supreme Court, there are
four and a half thousand practising
solicitors in this country, there are less
than nine hundred barristers, I'm not
interested in fighting a battle on
behalf of any particular vested
interest, I mean everyone knows I'm a
solicitor but I'm not interested in
fighting the battle
per se
for solicitors
or fighting the battle for or against
barristers, what I'm interested in as a
legislator is the public interest and I'm
saying that the public, the general -
public has an interest in the widest
possible pool of practising lawyers
being available to Government to
choose judges. As matters stand at
present only 15% of practising
lawyers are available for appointment
to the High Court or Supreme Court,
there's nothing in any way remotely
13