How can we maintain confidence in judges who f lout the rules?

IT IS now 11 days since the infamous Oireachtas Golf Society dinner in Clifden. In that time, agriculture minister Dara Calleary has returned to the back benches and resigned his position as deputy leader of Fianna Fáil. Seanad leas-cathaoirleach Jerry Buttimer has stepped down too, and EU trade commissioner Phil Hogan has resigned.

In the latter case, a variety of supposedly informed opinion has argued that Mr Hogan ought not to have lost his job because having an Irish person in that role during Brexit negotiations is too important to Ireland.

This argument is fatuous. Mr Hogan was an EU commissioner, representing the union, not Ireland – and, just weeks ago, the Government endorsed him for the role of head of the World Trade Organisation.

He is either indispensable or he’s not.

And while Ireland’s influence at a European level is a matter for consideration, people who put forward this claim fail to grasp the essential issue at stake: it is about our democracy. Looked at in isolation, what happened at the dinner can be viewed benignly – an unfortunate breach of health guidelines.

But held against all the sacrifices Irish people made every day and continue to make; held against all the Covid-19 related deaths in care homes and elsewhere; held against all the lonely funerals; it simply was not tenable for Hogan to continue, a conclusion to which he belatedly arrived. Last week, this newspaper called for anyone in a State-appointed position who couldn’t be sacked to resign.

We reiterate this call in relation to Supreme Court judge Séamus Woulfe.

His defence was that he understood the dinner was organised within guidelines. As a man who was part of - and legal adviser to - the cabinet which constructed the restrictions, this arguement is untenable. It is entirely possible that in the coming months and years, the Supreme Court will be asked to adjudicate on the constitutionality of legislation relating to Covid-19 restrictions. Would that really be credible while among them is a judge who has been party to the public flouting of health regulations? And what would it say if Justice Woulfe were obliged to recuse himself from taking part in such decisions on the basis of his own failings on these rules.

Former chief justice Susan Denham is currently compiling a report for the Supreme Court on Justice Woulfe’s attendance at the dinner in Clifden. Writing in 2001, she described judicial independence in a modern setting as follows: ‘The concept of the independence of the judge exists so that he or she may fulfil his or her duties freely. The concept exists to guard the impartiality of the judge, to protect the judge from interference… Both the institutional judiciary and the individual judiciary are independent.’

This, she added, was for the benefit of community, not the judges. ‘It is a duty, not a privilege for a judge. Therefore, judicial independence is linked to public confidence in the administration of justice – in order to have confidence in the system, the public needs to be assured of both.’

Put simply, the public can not have that assurance when a judge is fraternising with politicians at an illicit golf dinner.

We need confidence and trust in our system of justice, and in the judges who administer it. It is difficult to see how people could reasonably be asked to have full confidence while Justice Woulfe remains on the bench.