Propensity to Apply for Judicial Office under the new Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments System::A qualitative study for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission October

The study of representation and participation in the judiciary is hardly novel. There have been substantial studies in a number of countries – often these have preceded the setting up of judicial appointment commissions – which have looked at the continuing problem of female representation in judicial posts. Prior to the setting up of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission a study carried out by Dermot Feenan for the Commissioner for Judicial Appointments for Northern Ireland also looked into this topic and produced a large number of recommendations. What differs from the Feenan project, in this project, has been the number of individuals consulted in interviews and focus groups. This has allowed us to provide a detailed qualitative attitudinal perspective to enhance the questionnaire study undertaken as Stage 1 in this research project. Further, we have carried out this study after many of the recommendations made in previous research have been implemented.
2
Our interviews and focus groups covered a broad range of individuals – solicitors outwith and within Belfast (private and public service), barristers in private practice and public service and also barristers no longer in practice. We also sought responses from student lawyers. In total there were 71 respondents, with a typical interview/focus group length of 60 minutes. The group included candidates who had little interest in applying for judicial office, those who might consider this in future, and candidates who had applied for one or more judicial posts and who may or may not consider reapplication. We did not seek the views of successful candidates for judicial posts under the new NIJAC process.
The timing of this project, with interviews and focus groups held between December 2007 and March 2008, offers an early perspective on the whether the creation of a NI Judicial Appointments Commission has affected, and if so, in what way, the decision to apply for a judicial post. Generally, we found that there was a significant impact upon attitudes to judicial application which had arisen from the creation of NIJAC and that this was more positive than negative.

Judicial Rehabilitation and the ‘Clean Bill of Health’ in Criminal Justice.

Drawing on an important survey of European and Australian policies toward ‘judicial rehabilitation,’ this article makes the following arguments. First, the rehabilitation movement should return to the origins of the word ‘rehabilitation’ and focus at least as much on efforts to remove and relieve ex-prisoner stigma as on treatment and reform efforts. There will be no ‘rehabilitation revolution’ without this. Second, these efforts should involve active, not passive redemption. Rehabilitation processes that require almost a decade or more of ‘crime-free’ behaviour before forgiving an individual for his or her crimes are just and fair, but they miss the point of rehabilitation. Policies should encourage, support and facilitate good behaviour and not just reward it in retrospect. Third, rehabilitation should not just be done, but be ‘seen to be done,’ ideally in a ritualised format. This sends an important message to the individual and wider society. Finally, I argue that it may be better to forgive than forget past crimes. That is, rather than burying past crimes as if they never happened, states should instead acknowledge and formally recognise that people can change, that good people can do bad things, and that all individuals should be able to move on from past convictions.

Human Dignity and judicial Interpretation of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was pivotal in popularizing the use of 'dignity' or 'human dignity' in human rights discourse. This article argues that the use of 'dignity', beyond a basic minimum core, does not provide a universalistic, principled basis for judicial decision-making in the human rights context, in the sense that there is little common understanding of what dignity requires substantively within or across jurisdictions. The meaning of dignity is therefore context-specific, varying significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and (often) over time within particular jurisdictions. Indeed, instead of providing a basis for principled decision-making, dignity seems open to significant judicial manipulation. increasing rather than decreasing judicial discretion. That is one of its significant attractions to both judges and litigators alike. Dignity provides a convenient language for the adoption of substantive interpretations of human rights guarantees which appear to be intentionally, not just coincidentally. highly contingent on local circumstances. Despite that, however, I argue that the concept of 'human dignity' plays an important role in the development of human rights adjudication, not in providing an agreed content to human rights but in contributing to particular methods of human rights interpretation and adjudication.

The Supremacy of the Sequence: Key Elements and Dimensions in the Process of Change

How single organizations manage the process of change and why only some of them are able to actually reach radical change are central questions in today’s theoretical debate. The role played by the process of change and its dimensions (namely, pace, sequence and linearity), however, has been poorly investigated. Drawing on archetype theory, this paper explores: (i) whether a specific pace of radical change exists; (ii) whether different outcomes of change are characterized by different sequences of change in key-structures and systems (iii) how the three dimensions of the process of change possibly interact. As an example of organizational change the study takes into consideration processes of accounting change in three departments of two Canadian and two Italian municipalities. The results suggest the supremacy of the sequence of implemented changes over the other two dimensions of the process in order to achieve a radical outcome of change.

Article 260(2) TFEU: An Effective Judicial Procedure for the Enforcement of Judgments?

Article 260(2) TFEU (ex 228(2) EC) enables the European Court of Justice to enforce compliance with its judgements. This article analyses its use in doing so and questions whether it could be applied more effectively. It commences by highlighting the principally economic and environmental context of the case-law, and by examining the initiatives taken to tackle delays in bringing these cases before the Court. The article then critically evaluates the effectiveness of the financial sanctions available to the Court. In doing so, it aims to fill a gap in present research by looking beyond the procedural measures through which the Court and the Commission operate to examine the practical impact of Article 260(2) itself.

The Rank of Queen's Counsel: Judicial Perspectives

The rank of queen's counsel, granted under the royal prerogative, has been part of the architecture of the legal profession and legal system since 1594 but has undergone many changes in that time, including most recently the adoption of new selection procedures. Recent cases in Northern Ireland have raised the question - what is the legal position of queen's counsel? By examining decided cases in context, this paper aims to explain judicial perspectives on what it means to be a QC.

Rewarding Merit in Judicial Appointments?: A research project undertaken by the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission

This research involved carrying out an online survey using a number of vignettes/scenarios to explore understandings and attitudes to judicial appointments. This sort of survey is relatively novel in this context and provided a useful way of understanding how a range of factors such as merit and seniority, career paths and connections, as well as gender and visibility, are perceived as operating within the appointments system. The research also involved a series of focus group interviews with a number of individuals with various professional backgrounds and at different levels of seniority. These, and a limited number of individual interviews, afforded an opportunity to explore more closely some of the themes arising from the scenarios as well as a chance to look in some depth at some of the views and concerns of a range of members of the legal professions.

Building upon the previous research project, this work was less concerned with revisiting earlier themes and more interested in exploring how the idea of “merit” as a governing factor in judicial appointment is seen as working in practice, and whether it is perceived as being most likely to be found within particular career profiles. We also investigated issues such as the possible development of formal and informal pathways to a judicial career and practical problems such as how an applicant might become known to the senior judiciary, and the importance of this. Overall our interest was primarily in developing an understanding of how gender is perceived to operate in the appointments process and how any barriers to recruiting women, particularly to the senior judiciary, could be further broken down.