At last, the sorry saga is over. Two and a half years after he was controversially acquitted of the charge of possessing child pornography because the warrant under which his computer was seized was out of date, Judge Brian Curtin has resigned from the bench. The Oireachtas members charged with sitting on a committee to consider his conduct can revert to their normal roles and the Minister for Justice can bring forward his long-delayed legislative proposals for a Judicial Council which will deal with, among other things, the vexed question of handling judicial misconduct.
The whole affair has dragged on interminably. Initially, delays were caused by the ill-health of the judge, then by challenges to the work of the Oireachtas committee in the High Court and Supreme Court, and, most recently, requests for yet more time to examine experts' opinions. Along the way the courts made it clear that judicial independence is not something intended to be of personal benefit to judges, but a right of the people to have justice administered "in total independence, free from all suspicion of interference, pressure of contamination of any kind", and that the Government has the right to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
This month Judge Curtin became eligible for a pension, albeit a small one, of one-eighth of his salary, if he vacates his office for reason "of age or permanent infirmity". It is accepted that he has been in poor health for some time, suffering from a heart condition and depression. When the case against him on child pornography charges began, it was adjourned a number of times because of this. His health continued to be an issue when he faced the Oireachtas inquiry and - by his own account - it has not improved significantly since.
Yet this is an unsatisfactory end to the affair. Questions remain as to how and why images of child pornography ended up on the judge's computer and whether there was an innocent explanation. Equally seriously, we will never know why the Garda Síochána proceeded with a warrant that was out of date, when - on the face of it - it could have been renewed on request to the relevant judge. Nor why the DPP pursued the prosecution when, it appears, it was bound to fall.
In a constitutionally important development, however, the Curtin case did produce a Supreme Court template for the removal of judges. That being said, the Government must delay no longer in legislating for a Judicial Council which could avoid a repeat of such events in the future. This goes to the heart of the independence of the judiciary, which is a key asset of our democracy.