On the first point - I don't tend to be a fan of elected judiciaries in real life, but the option was put forward in private discussions and I wanted to include it as an option. The other two alternatives I included are similar to what we currently have, with either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General appointing Justices. Of the two, if the Attorney-General is to be a prosecutor, the role they accept presently, then I can see a potential conflict of interest there and therefore would be satisfied with a Prime Ministerial Appointment. If the Attorney-General is responsible for the Justice Department (perhaps with the authority to appoint prosecutors) then it's probably sufficient for him to appoint Justices. I'm also fine with scrapping terms for Judges if that's the way we'd prefer to go. My main interest is in the internal parliamentary procedure and setting that section up, the judiciary is not my area of expertise and I don't have firm opinions on how that should be determined.
I dislike term limits for judges, the "for life" appointment seems to work here, though if you guys want to put language in to replace bad judges (and I dont mean interms of disagreeable opinions, but something a tad more serious) you could do that.
It would probably not be a good thing if the AG appointed judges since (s)he would have to argue in front of them. The government leader should do that, and the AG can give his/her advice.
