Sir, – The separation of powers may be a settled constitutional principle, but that does not mean that the separate powers are equal. The Constitution gives the legislature the upper hand through its right to remove judges from the higher courts (Article 35.4.1). Parliament, though independent in principle, is in practice nowadays subservient to the executive, which means that the executive is in a strong position to act against any judges who might try to apply “a brake to overweening governments” (Editorial, June 28th).
If there will be a lay majority on the judicial nomination board, are these laymen not as likely as lawyers to show bias because they were chosen for their links with the government party, if not more so or because they are more open to subsequent pressures to carry out the executive’s wishes? Giving the chair to the Chief Justice would be useful in ensuring both the appearance and the reality of impartiality. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY,
Brussels.
Sir, – Further to Victor Sheahan's letter (June 29th), juries find as a matter of fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not an accused is guilty of an offence. Juries distinctly do not interpret the law, develop the law, rule on the constitutionality of legislation, determine the extent of citizens' human rights, or weigh up the competing priorities of protecting those rights and furthering public policy.
There are many kinds of “decisions in the legal world”. Some are best taken by people who know what they’re talking about. – Yours, etc,
ALAN EUSTACE,
Marino,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – Reading the news these days, I get the impression Shane Ross is the Minister for Justice. Did I miss something when looking at the recent Cabinet reshuffle? – Yours, etc,
JOHN SHEEHAN,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.