Our judges can’t be a law unto themselves
THE war of words between the judiciary and Government ministers has intensified, with Judge Raymond Groarke, the president of the Circuit Court, saying that he can’t do his job unless the Cabinet agrees to appoint more judges. By throwing down the gauntlet in such a fashion the judiciary is showing its frustration at a situation that has arisen as a result of what it doubtless sees as interference by Minister Shane Ross.
Ross has demanded that the time-honoured and largely political way judges are appointed be scrapped, and also that they make an annual declaration of their financial interests. For his trouble the Independent Alliance Minister is being vilified as a modern day Robespierre, not so much by the legal establishment but by its mouthpieces in Leinster House.
The extraordinary power of the legal fraternity to protect its privileges is nothing new. It was seen with the Legal Services Regulation Bill which the Troika saw as necessary to save the economy. While measures to curb GP fees and allow more competition passed smoothly enough, the overhaul of the legal system was heavily diluted thanks to intensive lobbying by lawyers.
The lightning speed with which senior politicians lined up to dismiss Ross is the latest example of the cosy relationship between the great pillars of State.
MICHEáL Martin thundered that Ross was a ‘mini dictator’, playing to a populist gallery while the Taoiseach rebuked him for saying that judges lived a ‘charmed life’ and that a declaration of interests for judges was required because ‘they might forget their oath‘ of office to administer justice without ‘fear or favour’.
Chief Justice Susan Denham even stooped to intervene, claiming that far from resisting change the judiciary had lobbied for years to make the process of appointing judges more transparent. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy but it’s striking how every proposal to drag the legal profession into the 21st century is seen as a threat to that principle. Ross wants a modicum of oversight over the judiciary, but his modest proposal is clouded by false threats about judicial independence. The irony is that a register of interests would shore up respect for them. In recent years, rows over money have painted a picture of judges that is at odds with their status. The ferocity of their battle to be made exempt from the salary cutbacks facing other senior public servants showed a keener interest in financial gain than expected. In his book The Supreme Court, Ruadhán Mac Cormaic showed the behindthe-scenes histrionics that took place in the lead-up to the referendum on cutting judges’ pay. The late Supreme Court judge Adrian Hardiman threatened to resign and even though he confronted his Government cronies with his devastating intent, it pressed ahead with the poll, the dark mutterings about risks to judicial independence ringing in its collective ear.
The book tells how some judges were ‘in severe financial trouble, having made bad property investments during the boom. Government ministers wondered privately whether one or two might be close to being insolvent’.
The case by former High Court Judge Barry White to be allowed practise in the criminal courts didn’t help dispel the idea that judges were motivated by the same desires as the rest of us.
Facing school fees and normal expenses for his four children, Judge White argued that returning to work was a ‘financial necessity‘, notwithstanding his €250,000 retirement lump sum, his €78,000 annual pension, his wife’s income stream, €1m plus from his late mother’s estate plus whatever he may have saved from his 12 years as a judge when he earned up to €240,000 per annum. Ireland is a small country where the risk of conflict of interests is great. A register of financial interests would show that our judiciary is beyond reproach. It should agree to it rather than persist as a law unto itself.