The new body responsible for judicial appointments has called for a “stronger field” of candidates to fill future High Court vacancies, one year after the system was overhauled. The Judicial Appointments Commission was established in January 2025 under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell to recommend candidate judges to the Government, introduce measures to strengthen the independence of the courts and ensure nominations and promotions are made on merit. “The supply of candidates for some jurisdictions is not as strong as the commission would desire and the public interest would require,” O’Donnell said as he set out how the body completed its first five selection schemes last year. “It is important that structural obstacles limiting the pool for appointment and which discourage talented candidates from applying should be addressed and either justified or removed,” he added, without specifying the nature of the obstacles in question. “It is very important to the overall project of appointing judges for a 21st century Ireland, that the best qualified candidates are not discouraged from applying.” The commission replaced the former Judicial Appointments Advisory Board in an effort to increase transparency and dispel concern about political influence in the appointment of judges. Only candidates recommended by the commission can be considered by the Government when it advises the President on appointments. In its “establishment year” annual report for 2025, the body said it provided names to fill 12 vacancies in two High Court selection schemes and one scheme each for the District Court, the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeal. “In general, the commission considered that many of the candidates for each judicial position were excellent; there was a surfeit of qualified candidates in each case,” the report said. “The position differed somewhat between jurisdictions and in the case of the High Court, the commission would welcome a stronger field of applicants for future selection processes.”Still, the commission said it “did not have to consider” exercising its power to recommend a lesser number of candidates in any case. While comments in the report were intended to assist with future applications, they were “not a reflection on the quality” of candidates. “In some cases, some very high-quality candidates applied, and the commission is grateful to all candidates for putting themselves forward for consideration.”Applicants for appointment to the judiciary were required to provide three references. Sitting judges seeking promotion required one reference. The commission said references which provided an endorsement of the applicant “in general terms, even if enthusiastic” would not assist it. “Some references received could not be afforded much weight for this reason,” the report said. “For instance, it was not always clear if a referee had any experience of the candidate’s professional ability and, even if so, how they might rate the candidate in relation to other professionals.”