We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE Alan Shatter has dismissed comments by a senior judge suggesting that the government is deliberately attacking judicial independence.
In a strong rebuke, Minister Shatter said it was “unfortunate” if pay reductions for judges which were brought in by a referendum were seen as an attack on an organ of the State.
The Sunday Business Post reported yesterday that Mr Justice Peter Kelly told a group of business people that judicial independence is being demolished ‘brick by brick’ by the government. He is reported to have cited the government’s handling of judges’ pay and pensions and the establishment of new courts as evidence.
The Justice Minister said in a statement that he was “surprised” at the comments and warned that they could affect how Ireland is seen internationally.
“The present government has not nor will it ever interfere in any way with the inviolable constitutional duty of the judiciary to independently hear and determine court proceedings,” he said in a statement.
Judicial independence is a crucial and fundamental principle of the concept of the separation of powers. This concept is of central importance and requires respect by each organ of the State.
“At a time when we are still fighting to restore our economic sovereignty and bring about sustainable economic recovery, we all have a duty when speaking to ensure that what we say has no unintended consequences and does not undermine international business confidence in the State,” he said.
No one should have any doubt that the rule of law applies fully in this State and no question mark hangs over the independence of our judiciary or court system.
In additional comments on RTE Radio One’s Morning Ireland this morning, Alan Shatter said he was “sure it wasn’t [Mr Justice Kelly’s intention” to suggest that the government interferes with the courts.
He said that some people are “uncomfortable” with the government’s “reform agenda”, including plans to bring in a new civil court of appeal as the High Court is overburdened.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly was appointed to the High Court in 1996. He has been in charge of the Commercial Court since it began in 2004 and has presided over a number of high profile cases involving property developers and the recession.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Apart from appointing party supporters to the bench that is.
U got there before me.
Colm Mac Eochaidh, former Fine Gael candidate in the 2002 general election was appointed a High Court judge.
However, this was also the man who blew the whistle on Ray Burke which led to the Mahon Tribunal.
There was universal acceptance at the time that this particular appointment was one on merit, despite his previous candidacy on a party ticket.
It’s unavoidable that judges will have political views. Despite this, the media were only able to attribute 30% of recent appointments to either FG or Lab. This was after making ridiculous links like being the cousin or sibling of a party member which in itself is not proof that they themselves vote that way.
What?
What ?
There’s at least one judge who may have been appointed on merit.
In 2002 .
Did something to Ray Burkes whistle.
Colm Mac Eochaidh is the guy whose private ad in a paper seeking people to come forward with “information leading to the conviction or indictment of a person or persons for offences relating to land rezoning in the Republic of Ireland” led to the establishment of the Mahon Tribunal.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/maceochaidh-nominated-for-appointment-to-high-court-1.1064146
Where ur30% come from
So i a nutshell he cost us millions on a useless tribunal.
@Leslie Alan Rock
In a nutshell he caused the fall of Bertie Ahern and the imprisonment of Ray Burk. But I suppose that was useless. It’s not like either of them was Taoiseach or government ministers or anything.
*Ray Burke
ALSO: The Tribunal had cost the State €21 million by 2002 but €34.5 million was recovered by the Revenue Commissioners and the Criminal Assets Bureau.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahon_Tribunal#Outcomes
do you actually believe the rubbish you comment on here or do all party members have to sing the same tune.
If you’re referring to me, I’m not a member of any party and certainly not FG. But if you can’t attack a person’s argument on their merits, I suppose you may as well try and attack the person that’s saying them. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
An independent group should decide pay not government. Look at TD pay etc way over paid for what they do bigtime.
I’m not against the idea, but who picks the members of the independent group?
Good question – maybe two judges, Minister for Justice and one other government rep, an outside expert to chair and two civil society reps appointed by consent of the others?
Will be difficult to get the balance right, but it’s clear that an independent body is needed, current system is a mess.
Politicians can nominate and appoint their own judges, most of the judges there now. Are nominated and appointed by FF/FG/Labour, the parties forcing property tax on its citizens and these judges will be overseeing any court case in relation too it!
Even a Sinn Féin judge would have no choice but to enforce the property tax and household charge as per the legislation.
What??
In fairness Justice Peter Kelly is a good judge and his opinion is worth listening to.
Did you hear the interview with Minister Shatter on Morning Ireland? If not I would advise you to listen to it before commenting.
Justice Kelly is a good judge but if his comments are correct as reported then he has got this one wrong.
@ Kerry. I presume you know how much he earns to make that comment. I question also how the independence of the judiciary is linked to their generous salaries? Being a good legal expert has zero correlation to equitable pay rates and if we know anything about the legal profession it is at best antideluvian in its work practices.
High Court Judges generally take a significant step down in pay from what they were earning as Senior Counsel … in fact, even junior counsel appearing before Kelly in the commercial list could be earning three times as much as him.
Again, there’s more than just pay at issue here, although Shatter may like to spin it that way.
@ Kerry Blake
Having been on the receiving end of this Kelly person in court on a financial matter, I would differ with your opinion that he is a good judge.
@Voodoo
A step down in pay to become a judge is because of the ridiculous cost of legal representation in this country, Judges rank among the most privileged and sheltered in society, their privilege is not under threat, obviously some feel under threat. There is no issue here, if judges feel that their independence is being demolished maybe they should have a go at some self reflection and examine their profession image instead of creating legalistic academic smoke screens.
The sheltered haven of the legal profession has been turned on its head with judges, barristers, and solicitors all coming before the courts in recent times. This was unthinkable only a few short years ago, not because they were above corruption, it is a symptom of the end of the old boy network of covering up the crimes of the rich well heeled and privileged. There is no room for this sort of network in a modern open society so who is threatened by it? If there is any real threat to judges it is a self perceived legal fantasy for a dystopian future Ireland, nothing to do with the here and now.
Solicitors and barristers have been coming before the Courts as defendants since the foundation of the state, judges in the Circuit and District have been judicially reviewed in the High Court every day of the week for years now.
On the issue of pay, I agree – leading barristers, the kinds of people who’d be eligible for appointment to the bench, make crazy money, but that’s just the fact of the matter. People like to say that the judiciary are overpaid, but when you look at the standards of the industry, it’s just not true.
But let’s be clear, it’s not pay cuts that are the problem here, it’s that the government are trying to bring the judiciary under their control. Very dangerous territory.
Never thought I’d find myself defending the judiciary, but here we are. No idea what “self perceived legal fantasy for a dystopian future Ireland” is supposed to mean, btw.
so your opinion is based on you losing a case and you are now bitter. i suppose you know the law better than him. genius is it ??
From my own knowledge of ‘this Kelly person’ he is an excellent and erudite Judge, who has little time for obfuscation and general bull. People might also remember his gallant efforts on behalf of childrens’ rights, which led to his sitting in the commercial court rather than adjudicating on the lack of provision of services for children.
Dystopian = fictional nightmarish future.
Jeez, thanks steo whatever, would never have worked that one out :-(
Judges never had an issue when benchmarking increased their salary.
Benchmarking didn’t apply to judges. For one thing, who would they have benchmarked against?
That’s true Mitch but increases have to happen for the same reason that decreases cannot happen, to ensure the separation of powers and in independent judiciary. In this instance, I disagree with the notion that a constitutional amendment, voted for by the people of Ireland, could in some way be seen as interference from either branch of government. Still, the judiciary in this country must be free to operate without fear of economic sanction if they disagree with the government of the day and a failure to move their pay upwards in line with benchmarking or the ability of the goverment to reduce their remuneration are methods used to curtail that freedom.
Judicial independence? Seems Kelly is a little bit upset that his pay was docked a little on the back of a referendum decided on by the Irish people. Irish judges are the highest paid judges in the world – even higher than the USA.
Well said Minister Shatter. Judges for too ong have thought themselves above us mere mortals.
Like Shatter doesn’t think of himself as above mere mortals (including judges). There’s a lot more to this than pay.
Shatter loves an ould scrap.
Could he not deal with people in his office instead of “criticism” in the national media.
You know, go to work, call a few people, meet up, hammer out a fair deal and implement it.
No?
Sure the nation wouldn’t hear his clever words then.
The man is a cure for insomnia.
Shatter like nothing more than picking a fight thus has little to do with pay shatter was a good spokesman of justice very disappointing as minister
He appears to piss people off every time he opens his mouth. Leo doesn’t manage to do that
He is the poster boy for ‘small man syndrome’. He has had the gall to quote himself as an authority in Court. Unprecedented, by the way.
The judge is right this government is taking apart the independence of the courts. The arrogance of Shatter considering his government have done nothing but inflict pain and they are traitors. Holding onti power as well considering the people have no confidence in them.
How does reducing judicial pay affect their independence?
And they’re not “holding onto power”, they were voted in and continue to be the most popular party in the state. You may have a point if your talking about labour though.
Do explain how the independence of the courts is being degraded? The only issue was that of pay which the public voted on. I don’t think anybody has a problem with judges having to have pay cuts in line with any other public servant. They had tje opportunity to moderate their own pay themselves and failed to do anything. Judges are well paid even with cuts.
You may dislike shatter but to call him arrogant when he is helping to reduce your tax bill says more about you than it does him. (Assuming you pay tax).
The Irish people (unfortunately, I think) voted by a large minority to amend the Constitution to permit the government to reduce pay so you should blame them. The arguments made against the referendum at the time was that potential governments could use this amendment to influence the judiciary, not necessarily this government.
I fail to see any evidence of where this government has attempted to influence the judiciary and that is an incredibly serious accusation to make. I know people commenting on this site like to throw around words like
‘traitor’ as if they mean nothing, but if you actually think that we don’t have an independent judiciary, that we don’t have rule of law in this country, then I’d love to see some examples.
Government dissatisfaction is at 75 % according to the week in politics. They are holding on to power.
You have elections every 5 years so the government doesn’t have to be a populist machine.
Dissatisfaction is not the same as wanting dissolution.
Speaking of polls, the latest indicated FF & FG would poll 51% between them. All a vote would do is replace labour.
“How does reducing judicial pay affect their independence?”
It’s not reducing judges’ pay, it’s the *government* reducing judges’ pay that’s the problem. Our “democracy” is arranged with a separation of powers between judiciary, executive and legislature, all of whom are supposed to be independent of each other – giving one branch a say in the pay and conditions of another is clearly dangerous.
Judges have gone from constitutionally independent to being subject to Croke Park II, even though they aren’t allowed to have a union or be represented in the talks. As far as I know, TDs aren’t affected in the same way … funnily enough.
The point is that judges aren’t just another civil servant, they’re another branch of government. Supreme Court Judge Frank Clarke suggested recently that an independent body should be set up to deal with judicial appointments, pay and conditions, I think he’s on to something with that.
Voodoo,
At last. Someone that actually posts the reasons why this populist referendum should have had more debate.
No one actually realised the consequences of a yes at the time. Certainly not on this site.
What’s done is done now. Let FG and Lab deal with fallout when it comes.
I disagree that nobody realised at the time when the referendum was debated as to the dangers of judicial pay. I was in the audience of the Frontline debate on the issue and the dangers of it were made explicitly clear. When constitutional amendments are debated in the media, they’re legally done on a 50/50 basis so you can’t come along now and say that people didn’t know.
People did know but people didn’t care. People saw ‘let’s cut the fat cats’ and they went with that.
Ignoreland,
While its true that there was 50/50 representation, there was very little debate about this referendum compared to the kangaroo court one.
I don’t remember exactly who was on the Primetime debate, but I remember Michael McDowel advocating a Mo vote.
Of course, people will look at him and say that he only wants to protect himself. As is often the case, people prejudge an opinion based on whose opinion that is.
He actually convinced me to vote No that night and I am no fan of McDowel.
The issue is not judicial pay – that is the emphasis Shatter has chosen to put forward. There are much larger issue in play.
For once I tend to agree with Shatter. At the risk of sounding off topic, I also feel that judges should not be chosen by the government alone and that there should be an independent committee to deal with their appointments. The clamour for judicial independence is one thing but when you see a relatively inexperienced junior counsel, such as Albert Reynold’s daughter, being appointed a circuit court judge directly by the government you have to question this very independence.
Poor Judges how will they survive on a measly 6 figure salary & We the Irish Electorate decided as per Our Constitution to reduce their pay but this is unfair to these overpaid buffoons in white wigs.
It should have been put to Us to reduce their pay by 50% & make them work a proper working week not the couple of hours they currently do.
I am interested to hear more of your in depth knowledge and insight into the working week of the judiciary.
We the Irish Elect rotate didn’t decide to cut judges salary. The government provided means to vote for that via referendum. Kelly’s point proved?
‘Referendum’ being the key word here. A plebiscite the result of which, irrespective of possible government influence in biasing information distribution, lay entirely in the hands of the people. Note that we rejected the 30th ammendment (Oireachtas enquiries) at the same poll that we endorsed this 29th. Complain all you like about the actions of government in bringing this to a referndum, but the people decided on this one directly.
No one is questioning the legitimacy of the 29th amendment. The question is whether it was the right thing to do. If you allow the government to reduce judges’ pay, it allows the government to lean on the judiciary when it wants a favourable decision. That’s a big part of what the barney between 1688 and 1691 was all about.
There’s a good case for saying that the judges shouldn’t be exempt from a general reduction in public sector pay. But the language of the 29th amendment is very vague. Kelly is right to be concerned about it.
The Chief Justice, the Bar Council and the Law Society have all backed the new court of appeal, and so far I haven’t heard a good argument against it.
Nobody has a problem with the creation of the Court of Appeal, it’s badly needed. As I understand it, the complaint is about a lack of clarity in ho judges are going to be appointed to it.
Could he be right?……Im thinking of Dave Hall’s case a short time ago.
It wouldn’t be too bad till you hear the judges salary and pension and the ludicrous sentences they hand down that you realise they do not inhabit the real world
All I want to know has either of them locked up a Banker????
The Commercial Court is a civil court.
Alan
Thou art not to be so cute.
Would thou care to search in Google for ‘Windle stops swindle’ and do right by the widows, orphans and pensioners of Ireland?
A Chara
A Lowly Taxi Driver
As a lawyer, I welcome Alan Shatter’s efforts at reform whole-heartedly. He’s a brave man. I hope he succeeds in making the profession, fairer and more accountable. Wholesale reform is necessary. It is a 19th century profession in a 21st century world. Our judges are amongst the highest paid in Europe.
Red thumbs? Do you really think they need more money than Constitutional Court judges in countries with populations of 60 million plus? Madness in any economic climate never mind this one.
I reckon the red thumbs are for your statement ‘As a lawyer’. Do you think you need more money than lawyers in these countries also? Greedy lawyers have bled this country along with selfish politicians and bankers. These three professions are a cadre of corruption that have spread a plague of greed and lies across the country.
A very true statement, but still let me assure you that the legal profession itself is utterly infected by corruption and greed. Do you really believe that every lawyer in this country is making a lot of money? You might want to check some facts, the majority of lawyers in this country, who do all the lousy footwork, are working for free or for buttons for many years until they realise that if you don’t have the right name or connections, you’ll make it nowhere. The truth is that many people in the past & present do believe that they actually have a chance to earn money in this industry which is a prime example for greed, corruption and centralised power. It’s about time that people understand that there is no single industry that is not affected by the consequences of the doctrine of “competition” and “competitiveness”, meaning that the people at the bottom work until they drop for low wages, believing that they will make it to the top some day, while the fat cats of the industry are accumulating more and more wealth. This is as true for a co-worker in McDonald’s being told that they can make it to the very top if they just work hard enough as for the profession of lawyers in this case. We should stop hitting on people in sectors of which we believe there is a lot of money made and automatically assume that everyone there is well-off. This goes for public or private sector. We have a huge redistribution and social mobility problem that needs fixing, so let’s stop making generalisations about public/private sector jobs or nations, stop bashing others and actually do something constructive, like changing the status quo to make this a better please for everyone again.
A better place, obviously. Please ;-)
The judiciary is neither fully independent nor accountable in any way. We need a proper system to allow judges to be appointed based on merit and to hold the bad ones to account for their decisions.
This Gov do have political influence on the courts of this land.
Do you honestly believe that “Peter Anthony Keegans” case against the Household Charge in Westport District court has no political interference?
If you believe that all judges are not influenced politically then santa really does date the easter bunny
http://www.corruptioninireland.com/apps/blog/
Wake up !
Meaningless article without some reference to the actual remuneration of Kelly. Also if he feels compromised then he should stand down. Oh wait he’s on a nice little earner so that wouldn’t make sense.
where is the legal ombudsman Mr Shatter .Its time for real change to an honest and just system where we the people can see that no person ,body or group dictates on their own part thus the appointment of an ombudsman. To be poor is to be left to the unequal way that this very system works and in some cases justice is removed
I disagree with the idea of an Ombudsman – but I do agree there must be reform in fairness. I think higher ethics standards for the legal professions is more desirable than setting up another high paid office with staff. There is a preoccupation here with an Ombudsman. An Ombudsman – removes the responsibility from the professions themselves to encourage and instill an ethical culture from within… this could be done by introducing comprehensive legislation incorporating clear legally binding ethical standards that are actionable if there is breach; insisting on rigorous ethics education in undergraduate law degrees right through to the professional courses at the Law Society and the Kings’ Inns. They do have ethics courses – but they are a passing genuflection to the notion of ethics – if change is to occur there has to be a change in culture here and that is a long process but will achieve greater results than any Ombudsman. Introducing legislation that insists on BINDING and CLEAR ethical standards and facilitating follow through is the only thing that will bring about real and lasting change. Justice belongs in the courts – not with Ombudsmen – access to justice in a reformed system is what is needed – not another layer of bureaucracy.
Merrrrrrr
If they can take my money hand over fist well then they can and definitely should grab as much as they can from judges and politicians. There is no real justice in this country its a complete joke. Politicians should lead by example. Take cuts of an equal percentage of the frontline workers and see how easy it is. Blood from a stone!!
Shatter talking about money well holy god
have your say