How many of our Supreme Court Judges went to fee-paying Schools?

jonsnow · 21-06-2011 10:05pm #1

Why a judicial post is a truly suitable job for a lady

Sunday, June 19, 2011 Edited by Pat Leahy
Our sympathies, first, this week, to their lordships of the bench who had to suffer the indignity of their salaries being splashed about the pages of the popular press in a most vulgar fashion last week.

The excuse for this unbecoming display was the news that this shamelessly populist government is to resort to a referendum in order to reduce judges’ salaries - as if any of their lordships were in this gig for the money. Distasteful, the whole thing, really.

This habit of parliamentary discussion of judicial matters is something that one wouldn’t have expected in the days when Fine Gael was polite.

Only recently, a TD - admittedly a Labour one - took it upon herself to request that the government consider appointing a woman to the post of chief justice when the post becomes vacant.

Her remarks were accompanied by some highly impolite references to the broad educational and social pool that supplies the judiciary.

‘‘As it stands now,” Labour TD Anne Ferris asserted, ‘‘judicial nominees generally come from such a varied background as that of the wealthy, middle -aged white man schooled in Clongowes all the way to the wealthy, middle aged white man schooled in Blackrock.”

This is most unfair, as well as ill-informed. As everyone knows, there are no Blackrock boys on the Supreme Court bench. There are products of Belvedere, Clongowes (only one, though), Presentation College in Cork, the Christian Brothers, St Mary’s and Rockwell - but no Rock boys. The District Court, maybe.

The Circuit at a push. Or try the Irish rugby team. Loads of them there.

Anyway, La Ferris goes on: ‘‘I know that on July 22 of this year, a vacancy will arise, upon the ending of the seven-year term, for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I would like to suggest that perhaps a woman could be considered for this post. Not simply because of the significance of having the first female chief justice, but because there are so many candidates, both inside the judiciary and outside, who have vast experience that they could bring to this position.”

Well, it would certainly be an unusual approach to appoint someone from outside the judiciary to the post of chief justice. Who would it be? Miriam O’Callaghan, probably. Her name pops up for everything.

Or maybe we could have a reality television show in which the winner gets to be chief justice?

Anyway, the outstanding female candidate for the chief’s gig is of course Mrs Justice Susan Denham. Alexandra College, since you ask. Among the rest of the candidates: spies in the Law Library, please report.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=ANY-OTHER-BUSINESS-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.7.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

Saw this article in the business post the other day and it got me thinking.How many of our Supreme Court judges went to fee-paying schools.I don,t know if all the schools mentioned in the above article are fee-paying.For example the article mentions Christians which could mean any of dozens of different schools-some fee-paying and some not.Obviously though the majority attended fee-paying elite schools.

The standard of our supreme court justices has been superb over the years but they do all come from a very narrow slice of irish society.Do people think this will change time and will we have a bench that is composed of a more balanced group like for example the us supreme court.

bath handle · 22-06-2011 12:42am

Apart from technical or vocational schools, all second level schools were fee paying until 1969. Only a minority reached leaving cert and an even smaller number went on to third level. Look at the ages of the superior court judges. When were they at school? The judges on the Supreme court represent the educational system of 50 years so.

coylemj · 22-06-2011 10:21am

bath handle wrote: »

Apart from technical or vocational schools, all second level schools were fee paying until 1969

Minor correction, 1968 was the first year of free secondary education. I should know, I was part of the first batch in September 1968.

22-06-2011 1:07pm

Why do we need to push the Supreme Court to reflect a broad spectrum of anything? Are the current Court and the enormous majority of their predecessors excellent at their job? In my opinion the answer is yes. Just keep picking the best person for the job regardless of where they come from, where they went to school or what gender they are.

FWIW I think Denham J would make an excellent Chief Justice and if it weren't for the fact she is almost invaluable in the High Court Laffoy J would make an excellent Supreme Court Judge also.

Tom Young · 22-06-2011 1:13pm

That's true.

Reloc8 · 22-06-2011 1:32pm

I think we should appoint a Supreme Court of Taxi Drivers.

a) They know feckin' everything.

b) They'd definitely still be available as taxis at night, having finished up with the nixer during the day.

c) You could therefore have a go at them about whatever you disagree with in their latest decisions, especially after you had a few beers.

d) d) They'd be bit less right-wing... ok too far

McCrack · 22-06-2011 1:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do we need to push the Supreme Court to reflect a broad spectrum of anything? Are the current Court and the enormous majority of their predecessors excellent at their job? In my opinion the answer is yes. Just keep picking the best person for the job regardless of where they come from, where they went to school or what gender they are.

FWIW I think Denham J would make an excellent Chief Justice and if it weren't for the fact she is almost invaluable in the High Court Laffoy J would make an excellent Supreme Court Judge also.

I agree to a point. It's only a natural consequence that the current composition is what it is. The legal profession was always been a traditional profession and tied up with members that were typically male and from wealthy professional backgrounds. This has changed somewhat and the demographics has moved particularly over the past 10 years. I would say in 30 or more years time we will see more women in senior judicial positions and a move away from the traditional make up of the current bench. I certainly have seen various types of people enter the legal profession in recent years that for one reason or another would not have or would have found it very difficult to join in the 1960's to early 1990's. The profession has opened up more in recent years but certainly more progress is needed.

Denham is in the Supreme Court, I don't know if she is tipped for the CJ position but I am sure she has a very good potential.

coylemj · 22-06-2011 2:32pm

Reloc8 wrote: »

I think we should appoint a Supreme Court of Taxi Drivers.

Throw in a few barmen/women, barbers & hairdressers and you'd have all knowledge and opinions covered

Grolschevik · 22-06-2011 3:02pm

coylemj wrote: »

Throw in a few barmen/women, barbers & hairdressers and you'd have all knowledge and opinions covered

A random selection of AH and/or Politics frequenters, too...

Kosseegan · 22-06-2011 3:45pm

It will take years for the Supreme Court to have a composition in which the backgrounds of its members are considerably more diverse than at present. Until the early 1980s Devils had to pay a fee to their master for their devilling as well as pay a subscription to the LAw Library which was the same for every member. Solicitor often had to pay for their apprenticeship and got no wage. The vast bulk of members of the legal profession who began practise before that were almost invariably upper middle class. Frequently bright working and lower middle class people had to go directly into the workforce from the Leaving cert because they couldn't afford college and their family needed the income. The opening up only began in the 1990s and it will be another 20 years before this is fully reflected in the judiciary.

22-06-2011 7:55pm

There is a similar debate going on in England at the moment. The two recent Supreme Court appointments have left Baroness Hale as the only female member.
I would agree with Kayroo, the judges of the Supreme Court should always be chosen because they are the best availible, irrespective of their backrounds. The work of the judiciary is too important to subject if to affirmative action. People should always take into account that it will take around 40 years for any societal changes to be reflected in the composition of the Supreme Court. Considering the current make-up of the legal profession is quite different from when the current court was in practice (excpeting Hardiman J as he was a direct apppointment) we can expect these changes to become evident in roughly 40 years.

swordofislam · 22-06-2011 9:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Are the current Court and the enormous majority of their predecessors excellent at their job? In my opinion the answer is yes.

All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds

Victor · 23-06-2011 9:46am

234 wrote: »

There is a similar debate going on in England at the moment. The two recent Supreme Court appointments have left Baroness Hale as the only female member.

I'm not sure how many members the Uk Supreme Court has, but in any small number, variation will happen. Would one prefer a quota?

I would agree with Kayroo, the judges of the Supreme Court should always be chosen because they are the best availible, irrespective of their backrounds.

Just because one is an excellent judge doesn't mean that is a reason to be selected. Would you exclusively have criminal law judges on the court, to the exception of those with other experience, simply because they were "better judges".

The work of the judiciary is too important to subject if to affirmative action.

how about thinking of it as "corrective action"?

23-06-2011 2:04pm

Victor wrote: »

Just because one is an excellent judge doesn't mean that is a reason to be selected. Would you exclusively have criminal law judges on the court, to the exception of those with other experience, simply because they were "better judges".

This is a false line of logic. I did not say best judge, I said best person for the job. The criteria for that include what the Court needs to give it a broad range of legal minds.

23-06-2011 7:49pm

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure how many members the Uk Supreme Court has, but in any small number, variation will happen. Would one prefer a quota?

Just because one is an excellent judge doesn't mean that is a reason to be selected. Would you exclusively have criminal law judges on the court, to the exception of those with other experience, simply because they were "better judges".

how about thinking of it as "corrective action"?

I think the current system whereby the government only gets a list of recommendations should be changed. The JAAB should be given total independnce and absolute discretion to choose the best applicant. I think they should choose the best overall candidate.

Reloc8 · 24-06-2011 2:56pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

A random selection of AH and/or Politics frequenters, too...

Yeah - put the cases up as threads and have polls on them ! Everyone can be on the Supreme Court.

jonsnow · 24-06-2011 10:44pm

Interesting comments by the Minister for Equality

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0624/1224299525157.html

A POLICY of positive discrimination is needed to ensure more women are appointed to the judiciary, the Minister of State for Equality has said.

Speaking at the National Women’s Council of Ireland annual general meeting in Dublin yesterday, Kathleen Lynch said it was “frightening” how few women there were in positions of power in the law.

“The law . . . is the only thing that you can truly rely on and if the law is dominated by men, then how can we possibly hope to get equality before the law?” she asked.

There are 143 sitting judges in Ireland, with four vacancies, the Court Service has said, and 36, or a quarter, are women. There are two of eight at Supreme Court level, five of 35 at High Court level, 12 of 38 at the Circuit Court and 17 of 62 at the District Court.

Ms Lynch said it was “quite stark” to look at the list of judges and see how many were men.

There were enough female barristers or senior counsels that could quite easily do the job, she said.

“You couldn’t possibly appoint five judges and they all be men, no matter how well qualified; you would have to have a percentage that are women,” she said.

She said positive discrimination was needed, but she did not think legislation was required. It was a matter of a minister following through on such a policy.

The Minister said it was her job to persuade other Ministers of the need for positive discrimination.

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter had recently appointed a woman to the judiciary because of her knowledge of family law, she said, and he was “easily persuaded on these things”.

24-06-2011 10:57pm

This is absolute nonsence. If there is the unlikely situation where a male and female candidate are absolutely equal in every respect, then there might be room for positive discrimination. However, this will rarely be the case. If the male candidate is even slightly better then he must be chosen. The work of the judiciary is simply too important to allow positive discrimination. The only candidate that should be chosen is the best one for the job, regardless of gender.
In this context positive discrimination does not ensure equality before the law, it makes a mockery of it.

Milk & Honey · 25-06-2011 9:09am

How does it matter in the District Court what proportion of the judges are male or female? If you are in a District where there is a female judge 100% of the judges are female. Likewise in a District where there is a male judge 100% of the judges are male. How does it benefit the women in a district where there is a male judge if the woman in the next district is female?
There might be an argument that it would be better if there were more female judges in the High Court on the basis that written judgements given in the high Court can have a broad influence.

NUTLEY BOY · 25-06-2011 2:56pm

jonsnow wrote: »

Only recently, a TD - admittedly a Labour one - took it upon herself to request that the government consider appointing a woman to the post of chief justice when the post becomes vacant.

Her remarks were accompanied by some highly impolite references to the broad educational and social pool that supplies the judiciary.

‘‘As it stands now,” Labour TD Anne Ferris asserted, ‘‘judicial nominees generally come from such a varied background as that of the wealthy, middle -aged white man schooled in Clongowes all the way to the wealthy, middle aged white man schooled in Blackrock.” .

A big problem with this populist tripe is that it ignores elementary facts and feeds popular prejudice.

Not every boy from Blackrock is actually white or from a wealthy background. Shock and horror - but it is true.

Any Blackrock past-pupil who attains judicial office does so on the basis of ability. This fact usually gets ignored by those who find it to be inconvenient. I am unaware of any judicial appointments made on the basis of where the candidate went to school.

As far as I remember we have a Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB) since around 1995. See the Courts and Court Officers Act of 1995. I suspect that this legislation was actually a Labour initiative. So, why does the deputy not leave the board to do it's work and the cabinet to make the final decision on the basis of the short list submitted by the advisory board.

Paradoxically, this type of generalised public canvassing can be the kiss of death for an aspirant as it might well reduce the process to the X -factor level...

MrPudding · 25-06-2011 4:35pm

Victor wrote: »

how about thinking of it as "corrective action"?

Correcting what?

MrP

jonsnow · 25-06-2011 9:29pm

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

A big problem with this populist tripe is that it ignores elementary facts and feeds popular prejudice.

Not every boy from Blackrock is actually white or from a wealthy background. Shock and horror - but it is true.

But I,m sure that its fair to say that the vast majority are.I don,t think blackrock has a large contingent of non-white poor pupils.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Any Blackrock past-pupil who attains judicial office does so on the basis of ability. This fact usually gets ignored by those who find it to be inconvenient. I am unaware of any judicial appointments made on the basis of where the candidate went to school.

I,m going to quote a section from an interesting paper about the role of elite education in Irish society called ‘Talking your way to the top’
A sociological examination of the role of elite education in the
reproduction of privilege in Irish society" by Margret Kennedy which has an interesting viewpoint.

"these views are reflective of the particularly strong meritocratic ideology that exists in the Irish education system today (Power
2008, p.75; Lynch & Lodge, 2002; Drudy & Lynch 1993; Clancy 1995). I believe that by ascribing success or failure solely to an individual’s ability, a strong meritocratic ideology effectively absolves the state and wider society of any responsibility for inequality in the education system (see Considine & Dukelow 2009, pp 287–299).

Therefore, from this perspective, the failure of so many working class individuals to succeed in securing top jobs is wholly due to individual deficiencies (Levinson et al. 2002). Hence, rather than reflecting a fair and equitable system, a strong meritocratic ideology operates as a
mechanism of social reproduction, as its ideology and its dissemination into popular discourse essentially masks the perpetuation of privilege (see Young 1990, pp.192-225).

The ideology of meritocracy is very attractive to the dominant classes, as it not alone justifies their privileged position in society, as
the result of their natural “giftedness” (Bourdieu 1977), but it also helps to gain acceptance from the underprivileged classes. By restricting access to the valued elite cultural capital and by cultivating the belief in its superior competence, the advantages elites enjoy are accepted and justified"

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As far as I remember we have a Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB) since around 1995. See the Courts and Court Officers Act of 1995. I suspect that this legislation was actually a Labour initiative. So, why does the deputy not leave the board to do it's work and the cabinet to make the final decision on the basis of the short list submitted by the advisory board.

Paradoxically, this type of generalised public canvassing can be the kiss of death for an aspirant as it might well reduce the process to the X -factor level...

The JAAP was set up after the Sheedy affair which was really as blatant an example of an "old boys network" in action as could be imagined.As the "advisory" part of its title implies, the board's suggestions are not binding (compare this to the Judicial Appointments Board in England which does what its title says - it actually selects the judge). The government can simply ignore the supplied list of names.The JAAP is allegedly riddled with cronyism and is seriously in need of reform.

http://www.briefcounsel.ie/news_full.php?ref=66707
Letters show Fianna Fail TDs lobbied to appoint judges

Batt O'Keeffe applied the most pressure, writing seven separate letters to the justice minister advocating the appointment of particular lawyers

Mark Tighe

Published: 28 November 2010

Twenty-three Fianna Fail politicians have lobbied the justice minister over the past 12 years to have particular lawyers appointed as judges.

Extensive political lobbying in the judicial appointments system is revealed in correspondence obtained through the Freedom of Information (FoI) act. It shows that Batt O'Keeffe, the enterprise minister, applied most pressure, writing seven separate letters to the justice minister advocating the appointment of lawyers as judges.

O'Keeffe wrote the seven letters between 2000 and 2004 when John O'Donoghue and Michael McDowell were in the Department of Justice. Yesterday his spokesman said: "Any letters the minister wrote to members of the government were on the basis of the calibre and experience of suitably qualified candidates for appointment to the bench."

Mary Coughlan, the tanaiste, Bertie Ahern, the former taoiseach, Dick Roche, the minister for Europe, and Tom Kitt, the former government chief whip, made two representations each in support of lawyers who were hoping to become either district or circuit court judges.

The appointments process has always been shrouded in secrecy. Under a scheme created in 1995, lawyers can apply to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB), which provides the government with a shortlist of suitable candidates for each vacancy. The government can decide to appoint a judge from this list, or someone else.

Hugh Kennedy, director of Brief Counsel, a legal services procurement firm, said details of the representations released under FoI were damaging for the judiciary and lawyers.

"I don't really blame the politicians in question because this sort of tawdry stuff, making representations on behalf of every Tom, Dick and Harry, is what they spend their entire time doing," he said. "However, the lawyers in question really should know better then to cause damage to the reputation of our independent judiciary when it emerges that some have been appointed to the bench after lobbying members of particular political parties.

"It also tends to make a mockery of the JAAB's statutory role. Widespread cronyism and granting of favours between senior lawyers and politicians could also explain why simple and necessary reforms of the legal professions have been continuously ignored and blocked by ministers for justice, to the detriment of Irish consumers and the state."

Reloc8 · 01-07-2011 11:18am

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Not every boy from Blackrock is actually white or from a wealthy background. Shock and horror - but it is true.

No, you're right - I've actually met the guy you're talking about.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Any Blackrock past-pupil who attains judicial office does so on the basis of ability.

emmmmmm...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

That is all.

Kosseegan · 01-07-2011 2:59pm

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

e.

Any Blackrock past-pupil who attains judicial office does so on the basis of ability. .

Maybe so. The question then arises as to the dominance of Blackrock educated past pupils in the legal profession. One reason is that children of the upper middle classes begin reading and acquire a larger vocabulary earlier in life than children from working class homes. This is then accentuated in the educational system and the result is a bias in favour of middle class entrants to law faculties in the universities. On graduation the need for contacts in order to enter and progress within the legal profession as well as the economic resources needed to complete sufficient training mean the upper levels of the profession by ability are heavily weighted in favour of those from middle class backgrounds. Since Judges of the higher courts are chosen from this group it is not surprising that the membership of the courts reflects a middle class background. In order to change this one would have to start in the pre-schools. The chances of a child born into a home where the first book it sees and the first time it sees anyone reading is at school, in most unlikely to become a Supreme Court judge no matter what their native intelligence.

beeftotheheels · 01-07-2011 3:39pm

234 wrote: »

There is a similar debate going on in England at the moment. The two recent Supreme Court appointments have left Baroness Hale as the only female member.

But Mary Arden was hotly tipped to join her hubby in the House of Lords a few years back as a female Queens Bench division judge in the Court of Appeal and then she went rogue (in the best spirit of Lord Denning). In Pennington she perfected a trust that the settlor had failed to perfect (as was necessary under re: Rose) to help "the little man", in numerous tax cases she found for Revenue without any need for reason or recourse to the law because the tax planning was "egregious".

As a woman I'd like to see more women in the Supreme Court, but not Mary Arden, that degree of blatant judicial legislation with no regard for its impact on precedent, and absent any trail of reason or logic in her judgments, has no place in the Supreme Court.

Sad to say recently the best man for the job has generally been a man, especially given that the Supreme Court really does not need a whole host of family judges.

How many of our Supreme Court Judges went to fee-paying Schools?

Comments