Sir, – Your Editorial (October 20th) properly calls for rejection of the “badly drafted” Oireachtas Inquiries (30th) Amendment. At least it is badly drafted in plain language. By extension, it is only logical for you to call for rejection also of the judicial pay (29th) Amendment which is not only badly drafted but is written in obscure and vague language. Moreover, to quote your own words: “There is rightly concern that Government discretion over judges’ pay would undermine their independence.” – Yours, etc,
ESTELLE FELDMAN,
Research Associate,
School of Law,
Trinity College, Dublin.
A chara, – In relation to the proposed referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas, it is explained that both Houses would have the power to determine the appropriate balance between the rights of people and the requirements of public interest. The measure of fairness would also be set by both Houses, thus taking full control of the process.
Is this not what happened with the Senate commission chaired by Senator J McCarthy in the US which pursued communists in the public interest? While I would be the first person to agree that the legal system needs reform, it is important too that it is the legal system alone that conducts independent inquiries. The concepts of law and justice are commonly associated as the same thing; they are not. Law is the guiding principle upon which our society operates and is used to adjudicate all inquiries, both civil and criminal. Justice is a value which changes from person to person and sometimes is achieved as the result of good law.
Unfortunately what the amendment is proposing, is to allow the Oireachtas to administer justice not law. Justice without law has a habit of being accompanied by agenda, private interests and politically popular “witch hunts”, which have no place in law or a civilised society. – Yours, etc,
GLYN CARRAGHER,
Cuil na Cille,
Ballygar,
Co Galway.
A chara, – Senator Michael Mullins’s suggestion that Priory Hall would be suitable fodder for the envisaged parliamentary inquiry system (Seanad report, October 19th) is a clear indication of how the facility may very well be abused.
Every local issue, regional priority will be petitioned as a matter of national public importance with the attendant kudos going directly to the sponsoring TD or Senator.
Will it be a case that the local school principal, the county manager and any other regional authority figurehead will be at risk of inquisition for the sake of a press release and some exposure on the part of the politician?
A more serious consequence will be the disenfranchisement and isolation felt by communities whose issue will not have been accepted as appropriate for inquiry; thus compounding the apathy towards our national political institutions.
On the other hand, come general election 2016, I look forward to quizzing candidates on the principles of natural justice, In Re Haughey and their view of the appropriate tension between the legislature/executive and the judiciary.
Leave well enough alone, leave it to the courts. – Is mise,
CORMAC O’CULAIN,
Baile Ard,
An Spidéal,
Co na Gaillimhe.
Sir, – Politicians have to be popular, judges do not, as one of your correspondents put it recently. This has a bearing on both proposed amendments to the Constitution.
I would ask Prof David Gwynn Morgan and Richard Barrett, (October 20th) to explain to the rest of us, why our court system, which deals on a regular basis with – among other things – serious crimes against the person, isn’t capable of dealing with the suspected wrongdoing of “bankers, rezoners and other vested interests” (I quote Mr Barrett).
Please spare us the argument that “the US, the UK, and many other countries” go down this road. Let us profit by their mistakes.
If the evidence to support a criminal trial cannot be found in the normal way, well, tough cheese! And please, please let us hear no more rubbish about tribunal/inquiries not finding people guilty of anything, or not “punishing” them. Ask Michael Lowry! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It seems a good time to remind the Irish people of how our system of governance works and of the safeguards that are in place to protect the Irish citizen. This is particularly so as these safeguards are now under attack from our new Government with their two proposed amendments to the Constitution.
Ireland operates under the principle of the separation of powers. Thus the executive, the legislative and the judicial powers operate independently so that the one may not try to influence or corrupt the other either by force or other means to the detriment of the citizens and each acts as a check on the other usurping power.
We also have a Constitution. Now the purpose of the Constitution is primarily to protect the citizens from their government. History shows us that governments always become power hungry and will try to break any fetters placed on their powers. Our Constitution seeks to protect us against this.
One way of keeping our judiciary independent and free from undue government influence is to remove the power of government to interfere with judges’ pay rates so that no government could apply subtle pressure to a judge by hinting that a certain judgment might affect the judges pay. It is now proposed to remove this safeguard.
It is also proposed to remove the safeguard that is afforded by the separation of powers in that now, the legislators are also to become judges through the proposed amendment giving power to either house of the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries and make findings on whatsoever matter they so choose.
It is never a good idea to give a legislator judicial power, as there immediately arises a conflict of interest which is not in the best interests of the citizens. The citizens would no longer have an independent route to challenge government actions.
Our Constitution has served us very well in protecting us from over-zealous government and this is why successive governments have led publicity campaigns to rubbish our Constitution in order to free them from the constrictions it places on them.
Failures in government have not been due to a flawed Constitution, rather the opposite is the case. It is failure to properly implement and abide by our Constitution that has led to the failures we are now experiencing throughout our society.
It seems to me absurd that we would even consider giving any further powers to government when government has served us so badly. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As a Canadian and a lawyer, I’m bemused that in the rather limited discussion by commentators on the judicial pay referendum, no reference has been made to the only other time I know of in the common law world that the constitutionality of a reduction in judicial pay has been considered. In the Re: Provincial Judges reference to the Canadian Supreme Court, the court considered whether Canadian provinces could lawfully reduce the pay of provincial court judges while being compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms.
The Canadian Supreme Court held that security of tenure, financial security, and administrative independence were all requirements of an independent judiciary and that financial security has both an individual and an institutional dimension. The provinces could reduce judicial pay, but in order to stop the possibility of, or the appearance of, political interference through economic manipulation, the reduced pay had to be set by a pay commission independent from government.
Some food for thought as this country, without much debate, eliminates a safeguard that has been in force in legal systems like ours since 1701. – Yours, etc,
DERMOT SHEEHAN,
Attorney and Barrister-at-Law,
Villa Park Gardens,
Navan Road,
Dublin 7.