Priests, bishops, politicians, journalists, bankers, business people, hospital consultants, solicitors and gardaí all have experienced disparagement from exposés, scandals and misconduct of late. Judges have escaped so far - sort of, writes Vincent Browne
There is the Brian Curtin case which is hardly edifying and there was the Sheedy affair some years ago, which caused two senior judges to remove themselves from the bench.
Actually in the case of one of those judges, Hugh O'Flaherty, what was scandalous about that case was not anything he did, (for he was entirely blameless), but the media frenzy and spineless politicians who ran scared in the face of that frenzy.
But judges had better watch out. There is about the demeanour of many of them a self-regard and self-importance which is waiting to be punctured; a sense of moral, social and intellectual superiority, often on the part of judges with little claims other than their office to any distinction on any of these scores.
That sense of superiority is boosted by the etiquette and palaver of our courts. The convention whereby judges of the High and Supreme Courts are addressed, as a matter of course, as "my lord" and the cringing obsequiousness of "may it please your lordship", and "I am obliged, your lordship" - apart from anything else, are objectively, offensive to the republican character of this State. Brian Walsh, the late great judge of the Supreme Court, told me once that an attempt was made several years previously to get barristers to stop this codology, but they couldn't. It was ingrained in their mannerisms and speech patterns.
I write this in the context of the neglected commitment to introduce standards for judicial behaviour and a mechanism to bring these servants to account if they fail to comply with these standards. And let's acknowledge at the outset there is a problem here. The problem is that a mechanism to hold judges to account might be used to nobble judges who were critical, say, of the Government. The independence of the judiciary is a bulwark of democracy and no mechanism for holding judges to account should encroach on that.
Central to our Constitution is the provision that judges of the superior courts can be removed from office only by way of an intricate impeachment process, otherwise nothing can be done to sanction judges or curtail them.
While this sounds robust, in fact, as we found out a few years ago in the case of Hugh O'Flaherty, it can also lead to nonsense.
Because of the ludicrousness of that fiasco, some other measure for censuring judges was sought and the recently retired chief justice, Ronan Keane, came up with the proposal for a judicial council representative of the judiciary as a whole, with a disciplinary committee, which would have lay representation on it.
But, because of the constitutional protection for the independence of judges, this disciplinary committee would have the powers merely to recommend impeachment, or issue a private or public reprimand. It couldn't fine judges or suspend them or send them to jail or, worse still, send them to a lower court. Why the hyperactive Michael McDowell has failed to introduce the Judicial Council Bill after two years is unexplained, but it should happen, pronto.
Another thing that should happen pronto is the manner in which judges are appointed. There was what purported to be a reform of this procedure several years ago with the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission. This has turned into a joke.
The commission is required to send up to the Government so many names for each judicial appointment as to make any sensible sifting of candidates meaningless.
There are now more political appointments to the bench than perhaps ever. This Government - particularly its PD component - has used judicial appointments with an abandon not known certainly since the most arrogant days of Fianna Fáil in the 1960s.
Our Constitution confers on judges very considerable powers, and they have been adept at adding to these considerable powers themselves. Quite properly we afford judges independence from the Oireachtas and even public opinion in the exercise of these powers.
But we could be more selective and considered in the appointment of judges.
Prior to appointment there should be an inquiry into the qualifications of candidates for judicial office, and an examination on how they might exercise judicial powers in key areas were they appointed. This is what happens in the US and it works , even though judges resent the examination of their fitness for office.
That should happen here and academic lawyers should be invited to facilitate an Oireachtas judiciary committee to make such an evaluation.
That process might also test the extent to which candidates for judicial office had elementary social skills and a capacity to regard lawyers and citizens who came before them as deserving respect, politeness and civility. I can think of a few who would have faltered at that hurdle.