The resignations of Supreme Court Judge, Mr Hugh O'Flaherty, High Court Judge, Mr Cyril Kelly and County Registrar, Mr Michael Quinlan, were a necessary antidote to growing public disquiet over the impartial administration of justice in our society. The original report by the Chief Justice, Mr Liam Hamilton, last Friday, and yesterday's findings by the Department of Justice put the responsibilities of the three individuals beyond reasonable doubt. But the fact remains that, in the absence of proper disciplinary procedures, a threatened constitutional crisis was only averted by their voluntary resignations. That situation cannot be allowed to continue for any length of time and both the Government and the judiciary must now co-operate in addressing the situation in a robust and comprehensive fashion.
There is no denying the handling of the Philip Sheedy case has shaken confidence in the courts system and raised worrying questions in the public mind. Just why the rules were broken for this particular individual are still not known. And some of the judicial practices that have grown up, such as plea-bargaining in judges' chambers, appear to run counter to the constitutional demand that justice be seen to be done in open court. There are also serious conflicts of evidence between some of the principals involved.
The Minister for Justice, Mr John O'Donoghue, sought to address some of those concerns by promising active support for the various reforms advocated by his Department. But his Dail contribution was lacklustre and contained no hint of a constitutional referendum that would permit radical reform. Instead, his statement made it clear the judiciary itself was expected to lead on the matter, supported by the Government. The separation of powers under the Constitution would be fully respected.
The Government's relief that the matter has been tidied away without precipitating a Constitutional crisis was palpable. But it should not blind it to the fact that major reforms are now required. The same holds true for the judicial system. Proposals for reform of the administration of the courts have been submitted to the Government, as have recommendations on ethics and disciplinary procedures. They must be acted upon as a matter of urgency.
The harsh reality is that we have no system to deal with judicial misdemeanours. The options available are extremes: to do nothing at all, or to remove an offender from office by way of votes by both Houses of the Oireachtas for "stated misbehaviour". As in other walks of life, there should be a system of accountability. It should be open and transparent and would probably require the involvement of the Chief Justice, along with the presidents of the High and Circuit courts. Where judges are removed from office - in the absence of corrupt practices - it would seem excessive to impose a double penalty by preventing them from returning to the practice of law. That convention could be addressed by the Bar Council.
The Sheedy case came as a great shock to the general public and has damaged confidence in the administration of justice. What is now required are far-reaching reforms that will bring transparency and accountability into the system. Any whiff of a dual system of justice, of croneyism or judicial arrogance must be expunged.