Tensions between the judiciary and politicians over the spiralling cost of Army deafness claims became evident yesterday when a High Court judge accused the Minister for Defence of attempting to "interfere in the running of the court".
Mr Justice Johnson's comments coincided with an attack on the judiciary by a Fianna Fail TD, Mr Conor Lenihan, who told the Dail Committee of Public Accounts that some of the damages awards were "ludicrous".
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Johnson set a new formula for assessing Army deafness cases which took account of the effect of ageing on hearing loss. He said that the Green Book - the report of a State expert group setting standards for hearing loss - gave merely a "still photograph" of the impairment at any given moment.
The Minister, Mr Smith, said that the new formula could push the cost of all outstanding hearing loss claims to £1 billion and might affect the scope for further tax reductions in the next Budget.
Mr Justice Johnson said it would appear that the Minister was "deliberately attempting to interfere with the running of the court". He made the comment during an application by the State for an adjournment of a case being taken by a retired soldier, who is seeking damages for hearing loss and tinnitus.
Mr Smith denied last night that he was criticising the courts or the judiciary. He had simply highlighted the implications of the judge's decision on the Green Book.
The chairman of the Dail Committee of Public Accounts, Mr Jim Mitchell, said that the overall situation in relation to Army deafness cases appeared not to have been resolved satisfactorily. Because of this, the committee would have to revisit the issue in the autumn.
A committee member, Fianna Fail deputy Mr Sean Ardagh, said that the secretary general of the Department of Defence should be asked to come before the committee again to indicate what the final cost of the Army deafness cases was likely to be.
Mr Lenihan said that it was not for the committee to analyse the reasons behind the decisions of the judiciary. However, they had to "look at this urgently from the taxpayers' point of view".