Sir, – The memorandum from the judiciary on judges’ pay states on its first page that “Article 68 of the 1922 Constitution provided that the remuneration of judges ‘may not be diminished during their continuance in office’ ”. On the second page, it quotes Article 35.5 of the current Constitution as stating that “the remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.”
To my non-legal mind, the attorney general’s advice to the government about reducing the remuneration of judges as a class was wrong. Maybe, he was mistakenly reading the 1922 Constitution which talked about “judges” and “their” when he offered that advice rather than the current Constitution, which referred to “a judge” and “his” . – Yours, etc,
BRIAN FLANAGAN,
Ardmeen Park,
Blackrock, Co Dublin.
A chara, – I applaud this Government’s intent to hold a referendum regarding judges’ pay. Its remit should be widened to include questions regarding public sector pensions, mileage allowances and anything else that is the direct control of the Government and is of considerable higher cost than its equivalent in other European countries not receiving IMF/ EU bailouts.
That’s not blaming anyone for the recession; it’s getting a mandate from the people to make the tough decisions so that we can adjust to economic reality. – Is mise,
ALEX STAVELEY,
Turvey Walk,
Donabate,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – A point which has been overlooked in the recent discussion is that, even if the fixing of judges’ pay is transferred to a committee of the great and good, in place of the Oireachtas, there will still be need for an amendment of the Constitution.
The reason is that what the Constitution says at present is that a judge’s remuneration may not be reduced during his term of office, but this is irrespective of what agency makes the reduction. So, even if the body making the change were altered, the ban would still remain. The only exception to the requirement of an amendment would be if the replacement committee for the Oireachtas were to be subject to a term of reference that it was not to recommend a decrease. But this possibility has been explicitly disavowed in the judges’ proposal.
There is a second and broader aspect. There has been much talk in the present context about the independence of the judiciary. Another important and relevant principle is the rule of law, the gist of which is no one is above the law. Usually the entity suspected of getting above the law is the executive arm of the government. But recently, in Britain, it has been shown that even Rupert Murdoch and his media empire are subject to the law.
It would be an object of scandal and concern if the Irish response to this example were to permit judicial pressure to prevent an amendment. For here the Constitution, the highest law, identifies the people as the basic authority in the State and, in particular, as the amenders of the Constitution: it is for them and not the judges (or anyone else) to decide whether or how to amend the Constitution. Any subversion of this principle would constitute an infringement of the rule of law. – Yours, etc,
Prof (Emeritus) DAVID GWYNN MORGAN
Law Department,
University College, Cork.