Judicial Appointments

Nick L

Hello everyone, just a general question in which your point of view and discussion would greatly be appreciated.

"Should the process of judicial appointment be altered to involve community consultation?"

I realize that in some jurisdictions, judicial appointments do involve a degree of community consultation, however this question is directed at those that do not.

Thanks for your input!

-Nick

partyguinness

No, I see no reason for this whatsoever. The Judges should be kept well away from the great unwashed. There is such thing as too much democracy. Leave the appointments to the people who actually know what they are talking about not the local rag or some charity.

Yes in the US they effectively vote for the judicial appointments. I dont agree with this either. You get populist and bad law.

The masses need to told what to do not asked.

Tom Young

Go read about JAAB. The composition must be from the legal profession. Setting it out any other way would make a joke of the legal system.

Robbo

It would only appeal to the braying masses of AH if it were a political process and someone was elected on a "hang em, flog em" platform.

Victor

Is there a case for public consultation or holding some sort of public hearing.

The decision can still be made by the "wise men", but it brings a bit more public scrutiny.

Hooch

Victor wrote: »

Is there a case for public consultation or holding some sort of public hearing.

The decision can still be made by the "wise men", but it brings a bit more public scrutiny.

Im not a solicitor and although I disagree with the fact that judges must come from solicitors, I do not believe that the appointments should in anyway have public infulence.
Judges should be appointed on their merits.....not on what joe public, Johnny councillor, billy senator or Danny politician think

Victor

nice guy always wrote: »

Im not a solicitor and although I disagree with the fact that judges must come from solicitors,

High Court and Supreme Court judges tend to be Barristers. I imagine ther emight be scope for having lay district court judges, certainly in cases where the accused isn't at risk of imprisonment.

I do not believe that the appointments should in anyway have public infulence.
Judges should be appointed on their merits.....not on what joe public, Johnny councillor, billy senator or Danny politician think

Look at how public consultation works for councils. The public makes their submission in writing to the council, the council officials summarise the submissions, it may go to committee and then it goes before the full council.

Now, let us say a large number of people are against X, because of Y. The officials can give the councillors proper information as to whether Y is material or not. So it is a qualitative judgement, not a quantitative one.

Of course, the current system of interview, recommendation to the cabinet, who often then decide based on party membership isn't exactly perfect.

nuac

Victor
I don't agree with your suggestion that Dsitrict Judges need not be lawyers. While my views might be coloured somewhat by 30++ years working in the courts, the fact is the District COurts handle a larger volume of cases than Circuit, High or Supreme Cases. While many of these are comparatively minor compared to what goes through the other courts, they are very important to the people involved.

A District Judge has to be able to deal efficiently and quickly with a wide range of matters and be able to apply the relevant law and some commn sense. There are good judges around, and some not so good judges. A day in each court would be instructive.

I would not agree with public consultation or votes etc. The procedure you describe re public consultation at local authority is for items such as the making of a development plan, and take a lot of time.

Further a judge in any area deals with e.g. prosecutions by the local authority. Independence might be compromised if (s)he were appointed through the local authority.

superficies

I agree judges, including district court judges, should be lawyers but should they all have to be practicing lawyers. What about academics? In lots of jurisdictions eminent legal academics can become judges (e.g. Richard Posner). This would be an interesting change to introduce here.

Hooch

superficies wrote: »

I agree judges, including district court judges, should be lawyers but should they all have to be practicing lawyers. What about academics? In lots of jurisdictions eminent legal academics can become judges (e.g. Richard Posner). This would be an interesting change to introduce here.

Thats why I was getting at. Why Solicitors?? Why not an academic with a Law Degree and why not a member of An Garda Síochána??

We will all agree they need a knowledge of law and court proceedures but why just Solicitors?? (is there are reason as such....just curious?)

nuac

With all due respects, and acknowledging that I am a practising solicitor, I believe experience as a practising lawyer is the best preparation for the District Court. When I was going through the system most lecturers werre practising lawyers. Since then I have attended lectures by many academics, and have read through lectures given by them to my relatives and apprentices etc. Many of them had obviously no experience of what happens in court or in practice. I think they would flounder in a busy court.

I have seen some academics in courts as advocates. Some cannot resist the temptation to tell the court all they know. I have seen some perfectly good cases blown by over elaboration. An advocate may welll know more than the judge about the applicable law in a particular case, but a prudent advocate would not make that obvious. .

retired Gardai would not be acceptable in the District COurt because

(1) Greqt majority of DC criminal cases are prosecuted by Gardai. Most Defendants would not believe they are going to get a fair hearing when it came to assessing Garda evidence against defendant's evidence..

(2) Most Gardai from rank of inspector upwards would have experience of prosecuting criminal matters. However they would not have any experience in dealing with the wide range of civil, family law, child custody, environmental, housing etc matters all of which appear on District COurt lists

If the poster is interested in this topic I recommend that s/he sit in at a busy District Court

Hooch

nuac wrote: »

retired Gardai would not be acceptable in the District COurt because

(1) Greqt majority of DC criminal cases are prosecuted by Gardai. Most Defendants would not believe they are going to get a fair hearing when it came to assessing Garda evidence against defendant's evidence..

(2) Most Gardai from rank of inspector upwards would have experience of prosecuting criminal matters. However they would not have any experience in dealing with the wide range of civil, family law, child custody, environmental, housing etc matters all of which appear on District COurt lists

If the poster is interested in this topic I recommend that s/he sit in at a busy District Court

Thats where I disagree (again im not a solicitor) but why out rule Gardaí straight away. Solicitors and barristers have been know to be anti Garda and will side with the offender even through over whelming evidence. And of course there are judges that will side with Gardaí in any case.

Its true most Garda officers only deal with criminal matters.......but there are a lot of solicitors who only cover criminal or civil cases and would have very little knowledge bar what they learnt from college.

Again im not trying to start a fight.....just healthy debate.:) Is it written in stone that it can only be a solicitor or barrister appointed to the bench?

nuac

Dats right

while a small nuimber of solicitors specialise in particular areas, the majority are general practitioners, and well suited by experience to deal with the various matters that appear on a District Court list.

Suggest you sit in on a few courts.

Hooch

nuac wrote: »

Dats right

while a small nuimber of solicitors specialise in particular areas, the majority are general practitioners, and well suited by experience to deal with the various matters that appear on a District Court list.

Suggest you sit in on a few courts.

I do.....on average 6 times a month.

dats_right

nice guy always wrote: »

Solicitors and barristers have been know to be anti Garda and will side with the offender even through over whelming evidence.

I think that comment illustrates a complete ignorance of the system and if I were a criminal defence solicitor, I would be highly offended by that remark. I don't blame you nice guy always because that is exactly the sort of perception that is so prevalent in main stream media intent on selling newspapers and bashing the judiciary and criminal defence lawyers.

A defence solicitor by virtue of the fact of representing an accused is playing a vital role in ensuring justice is done and that constitutionally protected right to a fair trial/procedures are observed. This may seem as an inconvenience to prosecuting Gardai, especially if their procedure was in some way defective but it certainly ensures that as far as possible and in the vast majority of cases, proceeding to trial, that fair procedure is observed. Whilst defence solicitors representing an accused represent their client's best interest to the best of their ability, this most certainly does not mean that they are "siding with an offender", rather they are fulfilling their professional duties to their client and the Court.

One must remember that in a criminal case the prosecution will have the full back-up of the State, even in the District Court it is common to have an experienced DPP solicitor prosecute minor offences, assisted by the evidence given by experienced Gardai, so why shouldn't the scales be evened out a little? Of course, it is absolutely fundamental to our democracy that fair procedures are observed in a criminal trial, even if that sometimes means an undesireable chap walking free from custody, better that than an innocent one go to jail!

And besides, I don't know why everybody is so unquestioningly trusting of An Garda Siochana. Don't get me wrong, I for one have enormous regard and respect for the work they do. But the likes of the cancerous corruption that was endemic in the Donegal Division of the force which lead to the Morris tribunal, the Abbeylara affair, the well known allegations during the 1970's and 80's of the going-ons of the so-called Garda 'heavy gang' who "allegedly" beat suspects into making confessions; all goes to show that checks and balances are a vital component of our criminal justice system in ensuring fair procedure.

I agree wholeheartedly with Nuac in regard to recommending those people who are critical of our criminal justice system and/or the judiciary to pay a few visits to their local District or Circuit Court and observe the criminal justice sytem in operation. I will bet that you will all be far more questioning the next time you read or hear a sensationalist scoop about "criminals walking free because of technicality" or whatever. You'll observe Judges and lawyers who know far more about social deprivation, crime, drugs, and general low-life'ism than any two-bob journalist!

On the point of retired Gardai becoming judges, I don't think they would have the legal training necessary and more importantly I think it would certainly damage the credibility of the system as their would be a definite perception of bias, whether justified or not. Remember at a trial there are two sets of lawyers i.e. both the prosecution and defence so lawyers would be more used to acting for both sides, whereas Gardai would have zilch experience and perhaps would be automatically inclined to favour their former colleagues in the force. In essence it is entirely unworkable.

Hooch

Hold on now, dats right. Please quote all my sentence not just part of it. I was trying to offend no one and I added that some judges will side with Gardaí no matter what.

The point I am trying to make is that Gardaí would make just as good judges as solicitors would in alot of cases.

O and I take offence by you saying I am showing "complete ignorance". I know fully how a court works. I have never shown complete ignorance in this forum. I am here to learn, to better my knowledge. Hense my origional question......is there a standing in law that states judges must be appointed from solicitors or barristers??

Hooch

dats_right wrote: »

On the point of retired Gardai becoming judges, I don't think they would have the legal training necessary and more importantly I think it would certainly damage the credibility of the system as their would be a definite perception of bias, whether justified or not. Remember at a trial there are two sets of lawyers i.e. both the prosecution and defence so lawyers would be more used to acting for both sides, whereas Gardai would have zilch experience and perhaps would be automatically inclined to favour their former colleagues in the force. In essence it is entirely unworkable.

Are solicitors immune from this???

Tom Young

......is there a standing in law that states judges must be appointed from solicitors or barristers??

Yes - Part 2, Section 4 - Subsection ii.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0015/print.html#partiii-sec8

nuac

Nice Guy ALways, I note you ae in court frequently. ..You may be either a garda yourself or a court official or journalist.

Even so I still respectfully disagree with you re retired Gardai becoming judges, even if they have acquired an LL.B or B.L.

Over the years I have visited Garda Stations on numerous occasions, and through that and acting for Gardai in various matters am fairly familiar with Garda work generally and their procedures.

However I would not claim to be qualified to run a Garda District, and am happy to leave that to those professionally qualified to do so.

I suggest the present system, whch requires that the lawyer being appointed has to have ten year experience works well.

McCrack

I think it's fair to say that the judiciary should be drawn from the ranks of practising lawyers. Dats Rights has hit the nail.

Judges are professionally trained to administer the law drawing on decades of experience either practising as a solicitor or at the Bar. There's no substitute really. I'm not being elitist when I say this.

I also think the system for elevating to the Bench has become more transparent in recent years. It was notorious up until quite recently that the judiciary were drawn from a circle that had familial or political influence/clout.

NGA as a serving Garda if I were to suggest to you that District, Divisional, Regional and indeed the top dog Commissioner ranks should be open to people who never walked the street in a uniform and all that entails what would you say?

Would you have respect for a 'civie' taking a senior position in the Garda?

It's very much the same idea.

Hooch

McCrack wrote: »

NGA as a serving Garda if I were to suggest to you that District, Divisional, Regional and indeed the top dog Commissioner ranks should be open to people who never walked the street in a uniform and all that entails what would you say?

Would you have respect for a 'civie' taking a senior position in the Garda?

It's very much the same idea.

Thank you McCrack, perspective is everything instead of beating around the bush:)

McCrack

No bother, After saying that I'm pretty sure that the government can appoint an outsider or 'civie' to the rank of Commissioner and I think it was done once decades ago :eek:.

Hooch

McCrack wrote: »

No bother, After saying that I'm pretty sure that the government can appoint an outsider or 'civie' to the rank of Commissioner and I think it was done once decades ago :eek:.

Yes they can and was rumors last year they would put a civi into an A/C rank....totally crazy!!! Reps kicked up and it was kicked to touch!!