The principle that politicians should not make representations to judges concerning court cases is a good one and, following disgraceful behaviour in the 1980s, has been broadly accepted by political parties. Constituency considerations can trump principle, however, and ambitious politicians do get sucked in. Members of the judiciary pride themselves on their independence. But, because of the nature of their appointments’ system, any political input to decision-making can fuel public suspicion of partiality.

Fianna Fáil's spokesman on justice Niall Collins wrote a letter seeking leniency for a constituent who was awaiting sentence for the possession and sale of cannabis. He did so, he explained, on compassionate grounds and to draw the judge's attention to exceptional circumstances in the case. The defendant had become the sole carer of four children, following the suicide of their mother. Mr Collins understood and respected the absolute independence of the sentencing judge and regretted if his actions had suggested otherwise.

The explanation offered for the interference is unconvincing. There was no need for him to become involved in advising the judge about exceptional circumstances. That had already been done in open court by defence counsel and by other individuals. Certainly, there were grounds for compassion. But advice to the judge on that matter should come from social services with knowledge of the family’s immediate circumstances. Mr Collins’ involvement was inappropriate and raised the prospect that representations by a senior political figure could influence a judicial decision.

This society has come some distance in ensuring equality of treatment before the law. But the operation of the penalty points system and responses to more serious matters has indicated a need for greater consistency and transparency. A ban on all political representations to judges or by way of appeal to the minister for justice – with appropriate sanctions – would represent an important step forward.