IT COMES as no surprise that more than 90 per cent of respondents to the Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll believe there should be an amendment to the Constitution to permit the reduction in judges’ pay. In the course of the debate on the subject, no one, judiciary included, argued in favour of their exemption from such a cut, clearly necessitated by our dire economic straits.
Yet the debate surrounding the matter strained relations between the executive and judicial branches of government and led to claims that judicial independence was in danger of being undermined. Normal relations, conducted discreetly between senior members of the judiciary and the Government through the intermediary of the Attorney General, appeared to break down, with details of the contacts leaked to the media and a memorandum from the judges to the Government made public. Rumours abounded of an unprecedented level of demoralisation among judges who felt that the controversy tended to undermine the institution itself.
In recent weeks there are signs that relations have been repaired. The megaphone diplomacy has ceased, and the invitation by the Attorney General tonight of the four most senior members of the Cabinet to the King’s Inns, that bastion of judicial tradition, for her first dinner as a “bencher” is a symbol of reconciliation.
That can only further improve with the appointment of Susan Denham as Chief Justice. She is known as a bridge-builder, and has succeeded in persuading her colleagues to accept many changes over the past 15 years. She is ideally qualified to ensure that the proposed referendum meets the Government’s requirement that an amendment will permit a reduction in judicial pay, while also ensuring that the principle of judicial independence is maintained, and it is to be hoped the Government will listen to what she has to say on the matter.
This is an issue which has received widespread attention elsewhere. Tom O’Malley, a respected legal academic, has stressed the international principle that the institutional independence of the judiciary involves freedom from collective control or influence by other branches of government. He has also pointed out that the most enlightened international thinking on the topic holds that judicial salaries and benefits should, as a matter of principle, be set by an independent body. There seems to be no good reason why this norm should not be followed by our Government, and it would reassure those who fear there is more to this debate than the matter of money.