‘Leo said he was a good judge... I took that on board’
BOTH Justice Minister Helen McEntee and Tánaiste Leo Varadkar have faced a Dáil grilling in the last week over the appointment of Séamus Woulfe. Both have given a thorough account of how Judge Woulfe was appointed to the Supreme Court and both claim that his appointment was only discussed after the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board had already put his name forward for the role. Here is their take on the main points:
ON THE SHORTLIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE ROLE Helen McEntee Helen McEntee NOVEMBER 26 ON SUITABILITY OF SÉAMUS WOULFE
NOVEMBER 26
‘[Leo Varadkar] also informed me, or I suppose gave a view, that he thought Séamus would be a good judge...of course I took that on board.’
Leo Varadkar
NOVEMBER 19
‘When the new government was being formed, I’m pretty sure it was the week before the new government was formed, the party leaders discussed whether or not Séamus Woulfe would be reappointed as Attorney General, or whether there’d be a new Attorney General. And we decided collectively that there would be a new Attorney
General, and that Séamus Woulfe would not be reappointed as Attorney General. And at that point, for transparency and for information, I informed the other leaders that there was a vacancy, that Séamus Woulfe had been recommended by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board as suitable for that vacancy, and that was the end of the conversation. ‘That [Judicial Appointments Advisory Board] all determined and agreed that Séamus Woulfe was a suitable person to appoint to the Supreme Court. Just as the Taoiseach said, that was enough for him, and it was certainly enough for me.’ ‘I did not make a decision because at that stage, I did not have all of the other names.’ ‘There were no further discussions about other names because at that stage I had not received other names.’
Leo Varadkar:
NOVEMBER 19
‘In almost 10 years serving in the Cabinet, as others will be able to attest to, I have never seen a shortlist of names brought to the Cabinet for discussion about a judicial appointment or even the appointment of a chair of a State board. That is not the practice. One name is brought to the Cabinet, and that is the case for good reasons. ‘It would not be appropriate for 20 people sitting around the Cabinet table to pore over a shortlist of names, discussing the merits and demerits of each candidate. It would not be fair to them and it would probably discourage good people from applying.’