There is concern among judges at the loss "in such distressing circumstances" of two members of the judiciary following the Sheedy affair, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Ronan Keane, said yesterday.
"It has naturally given rise to a great concern among members of the judiciary, as it has to members of the public, as to how exactly we deal with this sort of situation. I think it is quite clear that our present structures for dealing with it are really quite inadequate," he told RTE Radio One's This Week programme.
Mr Justice Keane told Mary Wilson, legal affairs correspondent, that a committee was in place to advise on what structures were needed to deal with matters affecting judges, and specifically allegations of judicial misconduct.
"I think there is a compelling case that there should be some form of body which would be able to adopt different remedies depending on the precise circumstances which have given rise to some complaint or some concern about members of the judiciary," he said.
Mr Justice Keane said he was in favour of the judiciary policing itself. "There is a very strong wish in the judiciary that just as the professions regulate themselves, the judiciary should be responsible for themselves.
"There are very serious issues to be confronted as to whether there should be lay participation in this process and that is something which we must make a recommendation on, one way or another.
"There are serious arguments in favour of it. One can understand, at the same time, there would be some disquiet that this is trenching on judicial independence. That is a balance we will have to achieve when we ultimately report."
Mr Justice Keane said he could understand the anxiety about openness and transparency if there was self-regulation.
Other countries where structures had been put in place, such as Canada and Australia, had found a number of complaints disappear in the filtering process because they were trivial, vexatious or from "very cranky people or simple disappointed litigants" who did not understand that their proper remedy was appeal of their case, he said.
Mr Justice Keane said the Philip Sheedy affair (in which two judges resigned after a young architect was released from prison after serving part of a sentence for driving causing death) had not damaged the reputation of the judiciary.
"While there was actual concern out of those events last year, the actual reputation of the judiciary stands very high, considerably higher than in some other countries of which I have had experience.
"That is because people's view of the judiciary is not shaped by an unusual event such as the Sheedy case, but is about what actually happens in the courts up and down the country every day.
"Of course, people are unhappy with what happens sometimes. Of course there are judges who behave badly on the bench from time to time. That happens in every country and that is human nature. But I think in general terms we have been very fortunate in our judges."
Mr Justice Keane said the high esteem in which our judges were held was evidenced by the fact that so many were conducting tribunals and inquiries.
He rejected the notion that the Court of Criminal Appeal was run on an informal basis. "Certainly not. No court should be run on an informal basis. There must be procedures. There must be a certain dignity. Probably the only court in which these requirements are significantly relaxed are the family law courts, and that for good and obvious reasons.
"The Court of Criminal Appeal is dealing with extremely serious matters. It deals with serious crime, appeals against convictions and sentences, and in my experience going back over 20 years on that court, it is run with a strict regard to the legal principles."
He said procedures were not insisted on when they resulted in injustice. "No court should do an injustice if it can be avoided. It is done in an absolutely open and clear manner and in accordance with clear rules and cases, precedence and so on.
"I have never had experience in that court of any kind of a case being dealt with in any other way."
Mr Justice Keane said judges were not in the habit of giving advice to people they met about their daily business.
"I don't believe judges are. We have all been used to the fact that we are asked in a casual way by people about the law since they know we are lawyers.
"Obviously, members of your family, friends and so on, will tell you about an experience they have had, but one never gives advice in any real sense. In fact, the only possible advice you can ever give them is: why don't you see your solicitor." The Chief Justice admitted that in many cases he has had to remain aloof from conversations.
"It is extraordinary that people will start a conversation at a dinner party, or any form of party in a social gathering, and this may be a high-profile case, or something which is inevitably going to come before the court one is sitting in, and I can't possibly talk about that, and you shut them off, sometimes rather abruptly.
"People who should know better sometimes insist on talking about things. It does make social life a little more difficult but it goes with the job."
Mr Justice Keane urged caution about judges giving interviews. "Individual judges doing solo runs is dangerous and undesirable, and I think individual judges should avoid dealing directly with the media and indeed that is why, or one of the reasons why, we now have an information officer.
"If somebody has a query about a case, or what exactly happened in a particular case, that can be channelled through the information officer . . ." "We must avoid judges becoming entangled with the media. It is not appropriate."
The matter of TV in courts was a very contentious issue, he said. "Obviously, in some courts like the Supreme Court it would probably do no great harm. It might also be rather dull viewing at times. I think civil trials and criminal trials all present very different problems. I think the case is far from being made out for television and cameras in courts. The dangers, in my view, certainly at the trial level, would outweigh the public benefit."
Mr Justice Keane said a change in the current system of judicial appointments would require a constitutional amendment.
"They are appointed by the President on the nomination of the Government. It is the Government that has the say. Of course, in a democracy, that is perhaps understandable. The Government is elected by the people and answerable to the people, and if they make bad appointments they should not have made, they are ultimately answerable to the people, and one might say that is as it should be."
He said the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, of which he is chairman, was a mechanism designed to ensure some degree of scrutiny of appointments outside the purely political governmental process. The board is asked by the Minister for Justice to recommend a number of names.
"Ultimately, the Government has a choice. It is not bound to appoint a person on the list. If it doesn't, it must say so. But apart from that, we have normally to recommend seven names. That means the Government has a certain amount of choice within those seven names.
"If you were to go further with a different mechanism that did not involve the Government at all, that would certainly require a constitutional amendment, in my view. The Constitution is quite specific that judges are to be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Government."
Mr Justice Keane said that, by and large, everybody knew appointments had been made on a political basis, and on the basis that a candidate was seen as a supporter of a political party. "All political parties have been involved in that process since the foundation of the State.
"The question is, what do you substitute for the present system. It would seem to require a constitutional change, and whether it is necessary to do that is open to debate."
The Chief Justice admitted there were some windbag lawyers. "There are some. They are a bit of a problem. I come from a generation of judges who grew up before some extremely unpleasant and rude judges, and judges who tended to interrupt all the time and bully people."