THIS IS A POLICY PAPER
Research design :
In this policy paper I will be proposing how judges should have more power in issues of the judiciary in
the removal
of judges in Ireland. There should be a judge leading the judicial council responsible for all matters of the judiciary. Currently The Irish judiciary is self-governing only in a limited respect (courts service). An example of the necessity of reform in strengthening the judiciary self-governance Is seen through the removal of judges. The formal mechanism would be the impeachment process under Article 35.4.2 which requires a vote by both houses of the
Oireachtas
however this has not been used. There are currently no powers to discipline judges. Judges should also be more involved in the appointment processes to avoid the repercussions of judicial misconduct in the judiciary. This would address the issue of the removal of judges. There should be a better focus on the appointments process being centered within the judiciary. I will show comparisons of the Italian Judiciary and the Irish Judiciary and how we can implement their system into our current system.
LW478 Courts and Judges 2022 LW478 Courts and Judges: Assessment The overall grade is based on a policy paper and its two presentations, and feedback to other presentations. Weight of assignments The policy paper: 70 % Presentation 1 and feedback: 15 % Presentation 2 and feedback: 15 % The pass mark The pass mark is 40% overall for the module. The policy paper Students choose one topic out of twelve broad topics listed below. Then, they narrow down their selection to cover a more specific problem within the broad topic. Students will consult with the lecturer the research design, especially the focus of the policy paper. Length: 3500 words (+/- 10%; including footnotes; excluding bibliography and possible annexes), referencing: OSCOLA Ireland. Deadline: see the section Assessment deadlines. The lecturer organises a special session on how to write legal policy papers. For a start, see useful basic information here. In short, a policy paper represents a not so common but a very useful writing genre for law students to become familiar with. You can appreciate its knowledge when working on analytical tasks, for example in public service, non-governmental organisations or in consultancy. The purpose of the position paper is to critically analyse current practice and propose its improvement. It requires closely studying the selected phenomenon and identifying a problem. In addition to proposing a solution, the policy paper assesses its alternatives and based on transparent criteria explains why the selected policy option is the most suitable. https://nuim.libguides.com/c.php?g=668191&p=4977683 https://www.monash.edu/learnhq/write-like-a-pro/annotated-assessment-samples/law/law-policy-paper#tabs__2766233-06 LW478 Courts and Judges 2022 Assessment criteria • Following the policy paper genre (all required parts included, style) • Quality of the critical analysis (persuasiveness, comprehensiveness) • Setting reasonable criteria of assessment • Logical coherence in application of the assessment criteria to the selected policy options • Creativity • Formal requirements (referencing etc.) See also the document ‘MU SoLC Grade Descriptor’. Policy paper presentations Intra-group presentations After submitting the policy papers, students will present their findings to the peers in their topic groups. Presentations can have a form of, e.g., a recorded video/audio presentation, a commented or plain power point, a blog post, a research poster, or any other form you find well-communicating the findings. However, the presentations should not exceed five minutes. After getting familiar with the work of the peers in the Intra-group presentations sessions, students will gain a complex picture of the issue of interest. Moreover, they will receive feedback on their work from their peers. Inter-group presentations Equipped with all the information from the Intra-group presentations sessions, students will mix with students covering different topics and individually present a summary of the Intra- group presentations. Again, the presentation can have a form of, e.g., a recorded presentation, a commented or plain power point, a blog post, a research poster, or any other form you find well-communicating the findings, The five-minute time limit applies. All the presentations will be uploaded in Moodle and accessible to the class. Assessment criteria • Clarity of presentation (comprehensibility for non-experts) • Persuasiveness • Design / speech • Formal requirements (the length of presentation etc.) LW478 Courts and Judges 2022 Extra points Students can earn two extra points for a presentation of a new judgment or any other developments in courts. Such a presentation opens every session, lasts ca 5 minutes and one student can present only once in the semester (i.e., max. 2 extra points can be earned through the presentation). Students can sign up for the presentation via Moodle. Assessment deadlines Selecting the policy paper topic: Week 3 (7/10) Narrowing down the policy paper topic: Week 4 (14/10) The policy paper deadline: Week 9 (18/11) Presentation 1 deadline: Week 11 (2/12) Feedback on presentation 1 deadline: Week 12 (8/12) Presentation 2 deadline: Week 13 (13/12) Feedback on presentation 2 deadline: Week 13 (16/12) Marking scheme See the document ‘MU SoLC Grade Descriptor’. Assessment policies and procedures Your attention is expressly drawn to the relevant University and Department of Law policies on: • Late submission of assignments • Extensions to essay deadlines • Plagiarism and to… • The University Examinations Regulations and • The Maynooth University Rules and Regulations and to all other relevant University and Department policies. These are available on Moodle. LW478 Courts and Judges 2022 Broad topics for ‘Courts and Judges’ policy papers Tip: see Hurley: Systems of Judicial Appointment across Europe (it shows Irish practice on many of the issues offered as topics in international comparison. This may direct you towards some particular problems, which might be interesting for you to elaborate on more.) Remember please that the policy paper has to apply to Ireland. Broad topics are emphasised, the text below provides you with some ideas where your research can go. Separation of powers Courts in IRL should be stronger / weaker (which powers should be granted / taken away) Who should decide on how the judiciary is financed? Judicial Independence How to strengthen (level of individual judges / courts / judiciary) Freezing salaries (example from Czechia – is it ok during an economic crisis to freeze judicial salaries?) Judicial Education How should be judicial education organized? Who should decide on what judges study, how often, etc? Transparency Should court trials be aired live on TV? Should all judgments be published online? Should courts be active on social media? Digital justice Should courts make more use of e-tools when judging (e.g., hold hearings in online environment)? https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2022/2022-08-05_l-rs-note-systems-of-judicial-appointment-across-europe_en.pdf LW478 Courts and Judges 2022 Gender and judging Are there enough female judges? Are they also in higher parts of the judicial system? See e.g. Havelková, et al. "The Family Friendliness That Wasn’t: Access, but Not Progress, for Women in the Czech Judiciary." Law & Social Inquiry (2021) for an inspiration. Similarly, you can look not only at gender but also at universities where judges from the top echelons of judicial hierarchy graduated. If a clear majority of top judges comes from one law school, should we try to change it? How? Why? Judicial careers How should a profile of an excellent judge look like? Who should decide on career progress of judges (going to a higher court, becoming a court president)? Judicial self-governance How much power should judges have in deciding issues of organisation of the judiciary? Should they have more / less power? See, for inspiration, e.g., O'Brien, Patrick. "Never let a Crisis go to Waste: Politics, Personality and Judicial Self-Government in Ireland." German Law Journal 19.7 (2018): 1871–1900. Judicial ethics Can judges play a role of ‘celebrity judges’? (e.g., appearing on TV and commenting on issues not related to judging) Can judges be active on social networks? Judicial accountability Who should decide on disciplinary measures against judges? Which tools should be used to hold judges accountable for their performance? How to balance judicial independence and accountability (e.g., you may argue that one of those is too strong at the expense of the other) https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2021.62 https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2021.62 https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200023269 https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200023269 LW478 Courts and Judges 2022 Public opinion and judiciary Should there be any limits to public criticism of the judiciary / courts / individual judges? How to increase public confidence in courts? Other topics E.g. case management – should cases be distributed among judges randomly or according to their wishes / specialisation? Specify, please. Systems of Judicial Appointment across Europe Systems of Judicial Appointment across Europe Daniel Hurley BL, Senior Parliamentary Researcher (Law) 22 July 2022 This L&RS Note has been prepared with a view to assisting Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas in relation to their consideration of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2022. The Note provides an insight into the different approaches to judicial appointments that have been adopted in 22 jurisdictions. Among the different approaches that considered, are: • Judicial examinations • Judicial traineeships • The use of a judicial appointment body • The role of national parliaments • The role of head of state • The role of the government Library & Research Service | Systems of Judicial Appointment across Europe 1 Background This Note has been prepared with a view to assisting Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas in relation to their consideration of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2022,1 by providing an insight into the different approaches to judicial appointments that have been adopted in the 22 jurisdictions. The information which is presented in this Note derives from a recent survey of parliaments which requested information in relation to the judicial appointments process across different European jurisdictions.The survey was carried out by the Bulgarian Parliament through the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD) in May 2022 2. The Note provides an overview of most of the responses3 received to the following question: “What is the procedure for appointing, promoting and dismissing judges and prosecutors in your country? Please refer to the regulations and specific provisions for your country.” As the same level of detail is not available in respect of each jurisdiction, this paper should be viewed as providing a general analysis and overview of the responses. As all responses address judicial appointment, the analysis which follows, focuses solely on this aspect of the responses. Therefore, it should be noted that this paper does not consider the procedures for judicial dismissals or the procedures in respect of prosecutorial appointments. 1 A L&RS Bill Digest relating to the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2022 is available at https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2022/2022-07-15_bill-digest-judicial-appointments- commission-bill-2022_en.pdf. 2 The ECPRD is a network of parliaments in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe. Responses to ECPRD requests are not publically available. ECPRD Request 5094 - Supreme Judicial Council - structure, composition, function, powers (May 2022). 3 Responses to ECPRD Request 5094 that were not in English, or where English translations of the relevant legislation are not available, have not been included. https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/42/ https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2022/2022-07-15_bill-digest-judicial-appointments-commission-bill-2022_en.pdf https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2022/2022-07-15_bill-digest-judicial-appointments-commission-bill-2022_en.pdf Library & Research Service | L&RS Note 2 Executive summary This section provides a brief overview of the key findings in relation to the different approaches to judicial appointments that are adopted across the 22 European jurisdictions considered for this Note. Table 1, below sets out a visual representation of this information. At the outset, it should be highlighted that a degree of caution should be exercised in relation to making comparisons between different jurisdictions due to the nuances that exist in respect of differences in political, legal and administrative systems that are operated in the countries analysed in this Note. However, certain categories emerge as distinct approaches that have been adopted in certain jurisdictions and these are set out below. Jurisdictions with judicial examinations/schools While nearly all jurisdictions include some form of competition to become a Judge, the following jurisdictions have specific judge schools and exams: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Jurisdictions with judicial traineeships/internships The following jurisdictions have specified forms of judicial traineeships or internships as part of the appointment process: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Romania and Slovenia. Jurisdictions with a judicial appointment body Judicial appointment bodies generally include a combination of judges, lawyers, politicians, civil servants and academics. Of the 22 jurisdictions considered, Switzerland is the only one not included below.4 The following jurisdictions provide for some form of judicial appointment body: Albania, Armenia, Austria (staff panels), Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. Jurisdictions with a parliamentary role in judicial appointment In fifteen jurisdictions national parliaments have a role in judicial appointments. In five cases Parliament either votes on or may approve the judicial nomination.5 In three cases members of 4 It should be noted that this response focused on Switzerland’s federal judges, with it being unclear whether the Judicial Committee that has a role in judicial appointment, is more akin to a parlimanetary committee, rather than a separate body with some judicial/legal input. 5 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Switzerland. Library & Research Service | Systems of Judicial Appointment across Europe 3 parliament are/can be part of the judicial appointment body.6 Finally in nine cases national parliaments directly elect members of the judicial appointment body.7 National parliaments have a role in respect of judicial appointments in the following jurisdictions: Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,