The arrest of Judge Brian Curtin on suspicion of drink-driving could turn out to be a blessing in disguise for both him and the Government, writes Carol Coulter
Judge Brian Curtin has not yet been charged with drink-driving arising out of his arrest at the weekend. Samples are being examined to establish whether there is evidence for such a case to proceed, and even if it does he may not be convicted. As with all other cases, he is innocent of this charge until proven guilty.
But if he is charged and convicted on this charge it may well provide a route out of the dilemma facing the Government about how to proceed in relation to his acquittal on charges of possessing child pornography.
The Government is at present awaiting a reply from the judge to a letter asking him to explain the circumstances leading to his being charged with this offence. He was acquitted on direction of the trial judge because the warrant under which his computer, along with the alleged child pornographic images, was seized was out of date.
This meant that the evidence was not admissible in the criminal trial. It is unlikely to be admissible either in an Oireachtas impeachment hearing.
A drink-driving conviction is also a serious matter. It could amount to "stated misbehaviour" meriting impeachment proceedings, especially if it was presented as part of a pattern of such misbehaviour. That would allow the Oireachtas to proceed to impeachment without having to deal with the awkward issue of evidence in relation to another criminal charge that had already been thrown out by the courts.
If convicted, Judge Curtin would not be the first judge charged and convicted on this offence. This has not led to impeachment in the past. But it has led, on occasion, to quiet early retirement, following the exercise of pressure by the judicial authorities.
If, faced with the threat of impeachment on this charge, Judge Curtin was to follow the examples of Mr Justice O'Flaherty and Mr Justice Cyril Kelly, and resign, he would do so with less damage to his reputation than would arise from a protracted discussion of the child pornography issue. This could become very damaging indeed if evidence not contained in the computer, and therefore not ruled inadmissible, was brought forward to support impeachment proceedings.
If he resigned on the basis of a drink-driving conviction he could return to practise at the bar, though not at Circuit Court level, where he sat, or at the District Court. Judges who leave the bench, for whatever reason, may only argue at a higher court than the one they sat in. But he could appear before the High Court, where still a large amount of personal injuries actions are heard.
Given all the circumstances of any such departure from the bench, it would be unlikely that Judge Curtin would be involved in many criminal cases, but the High Court also hears a lot of commercial cases, and cases concerning property and land law.
Practising in this area would mean Judge Curtin's legal career could continue, and the issue of a pension would not be so urgent as it would otherwise be.