The Minister for Justice today defended his description of District Judge John Neilan's plan to remand persons convicted of drink driving for one week as "unconstitutional".
Judge Neilan told the District Court in Mullingar yesterday that he would not hear drink-driving cases for six months following Mr McDowell's comments which he said was intended to "intimidate and humiliate this court".
But Mr McDowell said his point of view was supported by the Attorney General and that as a citizen, he was entitled to it.
Mr McDowell said he stood by "everything that I have said in relation to the matter".
Speaking on radio the Minister said: "I also want to say that I'm very glad that it appears that the law and the constitution would be fully upheld in the future."
Mr McDowell denied his comments were aimed to intimidate and humiliate the court and said that it was a matter for an individual judge and his president as to what cases he would hear.
"I emphasised at considerable length that I wasn't entrenching upon the independence of a judge or the judiciary or crossing the separation of powers."
He said every person was a citizen under the constitution.
"Judiciary ministers and ordinary citizens, lawyers included, we all uphold the constitution and the law and that's where the matter begins and ends."
"I heard some comment saying that somehow I should privately communicate my views to the members of the judiciary, that in my view would be highly improper.
I have never spoken to a judge in private about the manner in which that judge conducts his or her court and I don't intend to do so."
In court yesterday Judge Neilan said:"In view of the controversy that has arisen, of direct interference of a member of the executive in the judicial process, I am imposing a self-imposed moratorium on hearing drunk driving cases for six months to display my absolute belief that the administration of justice is above reproach."
"Those ideals of fair play and fair procedure are sentiments very close to my heart," he added. "Those who entered this controversy, clearly without realising the full practice and procedure of this court, were unwise.
"I have decided that a moratorium should apply for six months so that justice is seen to be done in a fair and proper manner. I have never suggested I would obstruct anybody from their God-given right to a fair process, or to challenge decisions made by me."
The row arose last week when the Minister responded to the proposal by Judge Neilan by saying "it is not possible for a judge in the case of drunk driving to say that part of his procedure will be to remand persons whom he has convicted in custody for a week while considering sentence. The law does not permit that, the Constitution doesn't permit that."
"There is a constitutional entitlement to bail, the only circumstance in which somebody can be put in custody for a week is for good and legal reason and a general policy of the kind outlined by the judge is not a good legal reason."