Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE GOVERNMENT has agreed to nominate two judges to the Supreme Court following the enactment of new legislation.
The legislation allows the Supreme Court to increase its numbers to 10, including the Chief Justice. The Government today announced that Ms Justice Mary Laffoy and Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne would be nominated for the posts.
Both nominees share similar career paths. Both were educated in UCD and Kings Inns and have served on the High Court for a combined 27 years. Ms Justice Laffoy presided over the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse until 2003, when she resigned due to problems with the review process.
A spokesperson for the Department of the Taoiseach said that the new posts were needed in order to alleviate delays in the courts.
“The current delay for cases before the Supreme Court is now over four years meaning that someone lodging an appeal with the Supreme Court today would be likely to wait until 2017. The Court of Criminal Appeal also has significant delays.
The appointment of these additional judges will help reduce waiting periods by allowing two divisions of the Supreme Court to sit routinely and facilitating additional sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal. It should be noted that both these courts have arranged sittings during September this year.
Formal nominations of both Judges will now be made, before being put to President Michael D Higgins for ratification.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
While I congratulate these ladies on their nominations, they will be a sad loss to the High Court. They are most excellent and hard working Judges.
ah yes dunne is being rewarded for nailing Quinn and the butlers in clonmel to the wall well done ,another blow for democracy
@ Dermot
Hahah so Elizabeth Dunne ruled on your infamous “Butler Brothers” (no first names, or details of this mythological case required) – I’m reasonably certain Justice was served in the Butler’s case so. If indeed it ever happened.
It’s a pity these new judges will just be rubber stamped into the job. It should more of a public decision considering the nature of their job.
They are very accomplished judges and I would hate to see the judiciary becoming a political three ringed circus like the presidential elections did.
Like a vote kind of thing? From the country that brings you FF and Healy Raes, is that really a good idea?!
Maybe they are maybe they aren’t all I’m asking for is that people vet them, even a public committee might do.
Lol… They’re appointed after a decades long career upholding the law.
If we elected the same calibre of people we elect to the Dail one can only imagine the disaster ensuing
Elected judges are a pure disaster. In the US where states elect judges, campaign ads are run boasting about how many criminals a judge has handed the death penalty to. How are you supposed to get a fair trial in that situation?
The right decision isn’t necessarily the popular one.
@ Steve Hardy
That’s a horrible idea Steve. Horrible. A brief glance at the comments posted on Journal articles about any legal issues will reveal a staggering, STAGGERING, level of ignorance on the part of the general public.
I agree that there should be a judicial appointments committee – but there should only be a limited number of public spots on that committee.
A public committee like the Oireachtas?
Sooo what crazy salary and pension are they going to be on?
I wonder what political connections these judges have?
None, judges are apolitical and Lafoy and Dunne are the two best we have (had) in the High Court.
Simon,
You’re confusing unaccountable with apolitical.
@ Simon I don’t know a thing about these two new Supreme Court judges. However they have been appointed by the Government and rightly or wrongly brings up the question of political affiliations.
A completely independent Agency not appointed by the Government of the day is the only way to assuage peoples’ suspicions of political patronage.
Well that will be a first then.
Are they Fine Gael?
This is the funniest things I’ve read all day. Judges are apolitical?! In an Ireland where jobs are being cut left, right and center we give more jobs to judges… Welcome to FF Ireland.
pure bull shit
@ Adrian
Don’t you understand that the Supreme Court is grossely overtaxed?
@Dermot
Fool
Go dunner and laffo! GIRL POWER
Last year we had a referendum to allow for the reduction of judge’s pay. Now we’re told by the government that we need to pay for 10 supreme court judges. I find it suspicious that these appointments are announced the day after the president announced the convening of the Council of State.
Judges should be above suspicion. The integrity of supreme court decisions is dependent on the integrity of the members of that court. It’s our politicians who appoint them, without any public hearings. What could possible go wrong?
The Bill allowing these extra appointments was only signed into law by the President yesterday, so the appointments couldn’t have been announced before now. And the change in the law allowing more Supreme Court judges to be appointed was first highlighted in early May, so this isn’t out of the blue (as per Irish Times – http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-judges-to-be-appointed-to-supreme-court-in-move-to-cut-backlog-1.1385106).
Oh, here we go. “Prolife” conspiracy theories from the: “sure isn’t the Chief Justice a woman?” “Yes, and a Protestant” school.
They’re two excellent choices, and in any case they probably won’t be sitting by the time the Article 26 reference is heard, if it is. So don’t be worrying your little head about attempts to stack the court, k?
Voodoo,
It’s not the first time in this Dáil Session that I’ve read about Court Stacking.
You’ve been listening to conspiracy theories, then.
I’ve heard from a *very* good source that certain one nomination in particular in the last round of High Court appointments was pulled for being “too political”.
These are both excellent choices who’ve easily earned their places on merit alone.
Voodoo,
If you are hearing from “good” sources, and you post anonymously to TheJournal.Ie, you might not agree by keeping judicial appointments out of the public eye is not the best way to make them. “Too political” is a dangerous description, fatal to judicial credibility. In fact I’m sure you misheard….
Where did I say I’m not in favour of a more transparent system? Just in case there’s any doubt, I think there should be a formal, transparent structure.
But at that, I’m really not seeing that a succession of hacks are being appointed under the current system, although that’s not a good reason to keep things as is.
Anyway, the point remains: the “prolife” conspiracy theory is just plain wrong.
For one thing, they won’t be appointed in time to hear any Article 26 reference. For another, it’s not at all clear that Dunne in particular isn’t more than a little conservative in her views. For another, the Bill was very carefully drafted: my money says that it would comfortably pass the Supreme Court as currently constituted.
Probably no coincidence that two female candidates gets the conspiracy mill running….
It’s logical to assume judges will progress up the ladder. The problem is the calibre of what gets appointed in the lower courts. Start fixing that. Train judges!
Judges do get training.
Something that perhaps should be addressed.
The Court Diary is a testament.
Well Kenny put them in what does he need them for????? More taxs to be Payed ?? Or has the Bull Dog Hogan something else he needs to put through to get more money
Your comment doesn’t even make sense…
As regards to what the government needs them for, they don’t. The Supreme Court does – in order to clear the 4 year backlog – as stated clearly in the article. Hope that helps. (Tongue in cheek, by the way).
They have been posted to find out what strokes were pulled in the corruption case yesterday and not a word about it on the journal
It seems to me that these are two very experienced and well qualified judges who are eminently suited to be appointed to the Supreme Court. The fact that they are both women is to be greatly welcomed also as the Supreme Court has too long been dominated by men, with the honourable and very distinguished exception of Mrs Susan Denham, the first ever female Chief Justice.
have your say