Justice must be seen to be done for judges' sake; GOVERNMENT

IN JUNE the government wants you to vote on four proposals to change the Constitution. One referendum deals with the conduct of judges.

The government proposal is ill-thought out, restrictive and deeply flawed. Unless it is radically changed, it should be rejected by voters.

The need for radical judicial reform is a direct result of the Sheedy affair. Philip Sheedy was a young architect convicted of dangerous driving, causing the death of Mrs Anne Ryan in Tallaght in 1996. He was sentenced to four years in prison. However, Philip Sheedy received an early review of his sentence and was released after serving just 12 months.

The early release of Philip Sheedy was a devastating blow to the family of Mrs Ryan.

Opposition politicians and the general public demanded an inquiry. Two senior judges, Hugh O'Flaherty and Cyril Kelly, resigned as a result of this affair. To this day the full facts surrounding the release of Philip Sheedy have never emerged.

One of the main lessons from the Sheedy affair is that judges have to be accountable to the public. Our Constitution, written in 1937, has to be amended to allow this to happen.

At present a judge can only be removed from office by a majority vote in both the Dail and Seanad.

THIS process is known as impeachment and no other sanction, such as demotion or suspension, can be imposed on a judge for misbehaviour or incompetence. It is an all or nothing situation. It doesn't work and it must be changed.

I find it incredible that after the palpable public anger created by the Sheedy affair, the government is actually proposing a measure which will make judges more immune to public scrutiny and sanction than ever.

What the government wants you to approve in the referendum in June is a situation whereby no judge in Ireland can be removed from office unless two thirds of both the Dail and Seanad vote for impeachment.

This is the exact same protection that our Constitution provides for the President.

The government wants to extend this to every judge in the country. The government actually wants you to make it harder to remove a judge from office.

What type of response to the lessons of the Sheedy affair is that?

In addition to increasing the protection afforded to judges, the government is proposing to establish a body to investigate complaints against judges.

This committee will be totally ineffective as it will not be able to take any action against a judge found guilty of misbehaviour. It won't even be allowed to consider if a judge is guilty of incompetence.

At the end of an investigation, the committee can only issue a report and recommendations.

What happens that report is totally unclear. No-one seems to know how the committee's recommendations can be enforced. It may well be that the only option open is the deeply flawed impeachment process requiring a two-thirds majority in both the Dail and Seanad.

The government proposal is a shambles. If the referendum is passed, judges will be more immune from public sanction and accountability than ever.

It seems that the government hasn't got the courage to bring in real reform.

It is only tinkering about with a flawed system and making it worse in the process.

In June, you, Irish Sunday Mirror readers, have a chance to call a halt to this nonsense and, by rejecting the amendment, you can force the government to go back to the drawing board.

The Labour Party is proposing a real alternative to the government's plan.

While we fully recognise the requirement to have independence for judges, we want to maintain the situation whereby a senior judge can be removed from office by a majority vote in the Dail and Seanad. More importantly we want to replace the government's toothless investigation committee.

We need a body with real powers that can issue sanctions against judges found to have been guilty of incompetence, misbehaviour or incapacity.

In a case where a citizen believes that a judge may have acted improperly, that complaint could be investigated.

If a judge is found to be in the wrong, then a range of sanctions could be enforced by this new body.

JUDGES could be demoted, ordered to undergo retraining or moved to a different court. It is a flexible, common sense approach that would make a real difference.

In the vast majority of cases judges have served this country well since the foundation of the State, sometimes at great personal risk to themselves and their families.

However, judges cannot be allowed to operate in an ivory tower. It is bad for the citizen and bad for the judiciary. The most important judge in the country, Chief Justice Ronan Keane, recognises this fact and supports reform.

We must introduce a system whereby judges will be required to adhere to basic standards, while maintaining judicial independence.

The public must have confidence that a genuine complaint will receive a fair and rigorous investigation.

In our working lives everyone has certain standards to live up to. Judges are no different and given the effect their judgements have on the lives of people, it is vital that citizens have confidence in the quality of justice dispensed in our courts.

The government proposals duck the hard issues. The amendment will not give the citizen a real opportunity to seek redress if they feel they have been seriously wronged.

In fact, it proposes a system more conservative and ineffective than the current system. It is little more than cowardice dressed up as reform.

The current proposals won't work and don't deserve your support.

Copyright 2001 MGN LTD
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.