There is no room in our legislation, and there should be none, for any form of jury-vetting similar to that which exists in the US. This was the unanimous view of the three judges of the divisional court of the High Court, who were asked to review an order of Judge Kevin Haugh to issue a questionnaire to potential members of the jury that would try Mr Charles Haughey.
This means that the way has been cleared - again - for the trial of Mr Haughey on charges of obstructing the McCracken tribunal to go ahead, but this is unlikely to be before July.
In the US it has become the norm in high-profile criminal trials for the views of jurors to be scrutinised almost as closely as those of the accused. In the words of one barrister, "trial of jury" takes place before "trial by jury."
In ordering the issuing of a questionnaire to all jurors liable to be called to hear the Haughey case, Judge Haugh stressed the "uniqueness" of the case.
But the DPP, who challenged the order, clearly feared that it could set a precedent that could undermine the whole basis of our jury system. Would it lead to a situation where, for example, a member of the Travelling community charged with an offence could ask for a questionnaire to go to potential jurors on their attitude to Travellers?
The DPP was supported in his action by the Attorney General. This meant that the State did not support Judge Haugh, whose position was not represented at the judicial review.
In his judgment Mr Justice Carney said it was repugnant to the Constitution that a unique set of procedures should be devised for one person. He then asked what if in the future a well-known gangland killer, drug-dealer or terrorist was charged. They could legitimately seek to have a similar questionnaire issued. "It would strike terror into the jury panel," he said.
The three judgments clarified a number of issues about our jury system, especially the provision for the judge to warn jurors that they must not serve if they are ineligible or disqualified. Circumstances disqualifying people include having any interest in or connection with the case or any of the parties. The judge invites any of the jurors who feel they might be compromised to communicate this to the judge.
All the questions outlined in the questionnaire - which asked the jurors if they had any association with Mr Haughey, the companies linked to payments to him, and the individuals involved - are now likely to be dealt with in this way.