NO OBJECTION to a constitutional amendment to reduce judicial salaries has ever been expressed by or on behalf of the judiciary, the Chief Justice has said.
Mr Justice John Murray told The Irish Timesthat any such proposal was a matter for the Oireachtas in the first instance and ultimately for the people in a referendum.
“It was [so] in 1937 when the people approved the Constitution containing a prohibition on the reduction of judicial salaries as one means of ensuring that they had an independent judiciary, free from direct or implied pressure from the government of the day or the Oireachtas,” he said.
“That provision was not put there at the request of nor for the benefit of judges, but for that purpose,” he said.
The Government is committed to a referendum on reducing judges remuneration, following the exemption of the judiciary from the pension levy imposed on public sector workers by the last government. Before the election, the justice spokesman and now Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, said an amendment would remove this immunity and ensure that judges were affected by the same salary decreases that had been applied to the public service.
Former attorney general Paul Gallagher had advised the previous government that any attempt to cut the pay of judges could be unconstitutional in the light of the provision of the Constitution which states: “The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.”
Mr Justice Murray emphasised that no view was expressed by or on behalf of the judiciary regarding that measure. The decision not to apply the legislation to judicial salaries was made by the Oireachtas and entered into force in the ordinary way, he said.
After the passing of the Pension Levy Act, Mr Justice Murray discussed with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners finding a way for the judiciary to pay the equivalent of the pension levy voluntarily, and a scheme was devised. This was subsequently legislated for and 85 per cent of the judiciary now pay 10 per cent of their salaries to the Revenue Commissioners in lieu of the levy.
Mr Justice Murray was responding to a query from The Irish Timesconcerning a measure contained in the 2010 Social Welfare and Pensions Act, which included provision for a contribution of 4 per cent of their remuneration by a number of senior public office holders, including the President and members of the judiciary.
Constitutional lawyer Prof Gerry Whyte of Trinity College pointed out that the provision naming the President and members of the judiciary, along with a number of other high-ranking public office-holders, had been introduced at committee stage without any debate, and with no question raised as to its constitutionality.
Mr Justice Murray said there was no view to express on this on behalf of the judiciary. It is part of the law and has been applied since it came into force in the ordinary way, he said.
Prof Whyte said the critical aspect of the proposed amendment on judges’ pay was the principle that it should be non-discriminatory and should treat members of the judiciary the same as others working in the public service.
“So long as the judiciary are not singled out for discriminatory treatment, any reduction is fine,” he said.