Divergent views: judges vs the Government

Judicial pay
What the judges say
The Association of Judges of Ireland says judges accepted they had to "bear their fair share" of salary cuts, and on Monday evening Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said it was "absolutely untrue" to suggest otherwise. However, the judges argue that, as the constitutional guarantee that their pay would not be reduced was removed via referendum in 2011, they asked that an independent body be established to fix salary "so as to ensure judicial independence". "This request was dismissed out of hand," according to the association.

What Minister for Justice Alan Shatter says
Pay reductions have impacted on all those paid out of the public purse, most of whom are paid "at a substantially lower level than the judiciary". In difficult economic circumstances, Mr Shatter says, it would have been "extraordinary" if the judiciary alone were "singled out for preferential treatment" and their remuneration left at a level substantially higher than in many states across the European Union. Mr Shatter's statements this week did not refer to calls for the creation of an independent body to decide on judges' pay, but he insisted: "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."
Communi- cations
What the judges say
The judges' group says that for almost 90 years of the State's existence, there had been no need for an association of judges given "the mutual respect demonstrated by the executive and judicial branches of government, one for the other". As things stood, however, "all structures both formal and informal which existed for communication between those two branches of government have ceased".

What the Minister says
Mr Shatter denies that lines of communication have collapsed. Within "constitutional parameters", he says, there is ongoing formal and informal contact between members of the Government, the Attorney General and the judiciary "in relation to appropriate issues".

Pensions
What the judges say
When a new law on public service pensions was enacted last year, in effect it meant that newly appointed judges, at whatever level, would from then on have to serve for 20 years to qualify for a full pension, rather than 15 years as was the case for existing judges of the Supreme Court, High Court and Circuit Court. Previously only District Court judges were required to serve 20 years to qualify for a full pension. A further change was that newly appointed judges would be required to pay a pension contribution of 13 per cent instead of the 4 per cent contribution payable by existing judges. The judges' association says it has "grave concerns" about these changes and contends they will have "considerable consequences" for both the quality and experience of future candidates for appointment to the bench. It states that even after a 20-year term, it is unlikely a retiring judge would be paid a pension equal to one half of salary at retirement.

What the Minister says
Mr Shatter says pay and pensions policy is a matter for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Asked for a response to the judges' concerns, a spokesman for the Department of Public Expenditure said the benefits that members of the judiciary gain from the new single pension scheme introduced in 2012 are "significantly higher" than for other public servants.

Insolvency judges
What the judges say
The Personal Insolvency Act provides for new specialist insolvency judges, to be recruited initially from the ranks of county registrars. Neither serving judges nor practising lawyers will be eligible for such appointments until 2014. The judges' association says this is a far-reaching change that was enacted without any notice or debate. "These judges, unlike all others, will be subject to ministerial direction concerning sittings," the group adds.

What the Minister says
Applications for insolvency judge posts will go before the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, which will then recommend "appropriate" individuals for appointment by Government. County registrars are not civil servants but "independent office-holders", all of whom were practising solicitors or barristers who would, based on their longevity in legal practice, be eligible in their own right for appointment to the judiciary.

Referendums
What the judges say
Three constitutional referendums are expected to take place this year, but no wording has been forthcoming "although they have huge implications for the judiciary". The judges' association accepts the need for a court of civil appeal – to alleviate huge pressure on the Supreme Court – it is concerned as to the form of constitutional amendment which may be proposed. Likewise, judges say they have "no information" as to what the proposal is concerning specialist family courts. The judiciary is also concerned that, were the Seanad to be abolished, the removal of judges would be subject only to a simple majority resolution in the Dáil.

What the Minister says
The Constitution does not envisage prior judicial consultation or consent for the holding of a constitutional referendum or for the framing of a draft article to put to the people to amend the Constitution, Mr Shatter responds. He adds a "helpful and constructive" consultative seminar on the court of civil appeal proposal took place last month and was attended by the Chief Justice, the Minister, the Attorney General and other members of the judiciary and legal profession. "Initial discussion also took place on the proposed new family court structure and a further seminar on it is scheduled for early July," he says.