The state must also remain independent from the Judiciary. An example of how the court remain independent, is the Byrne versus Ireland case in the Supreme Court which removed the states immunity from being sued. This paved the way for many more similar cases to be tried. The state can now be sued like any other body or company. Recent examples of this include the Army deafness claims. In this case one successful case paved the way for others, and the Government ended up paying large sums of money to the claimants. As a result they set up their own tribunal where they limited the amount of compensation that could be paid in each individual case.
Article 35.5 of the Constitution provides: the remuneration of a Judge should not be reduced during his countaince in office. This is important, as so members of the Judiciary do not feel “obliged” to the Government as continued remuneration depended on them. In the past the Judiciary might have felt that they should make decisions that would not offend those in authority. That however has changed and can be seen in cases such as the Hepatitis C scandal and Army deafness claims. There was also a case in October of this year where Mr. Justice Peter Kelly threatened to hold three Government Ministers in contempt of court if they did not provide a suitable place of detention for a seriously disturbed seventeen year old girl according to the standards set down by him. This led to a conflict between the Government and the High Court. Cases like these show that judges no longer feel ‘obliged’ to the government.
Article 35.2 states: All Judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial function and subject only to the Constitution and the law. In the “O’Brien V Minister of Finance” the widow of Mr. Justice John O’Brien claimed that subjecting a Judge’s conflict with Article 35.5 must be read with article 35.2. However the court held that to require a Judge to pay income tax like all other citizens could not be described as an attack on Judicial Independence.
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: IN COURT
In a case a Judge may be required to be excused from the adjudicating on a matter where they have expressed a view on an issue in question. A Fundamental principal of natural justice or fair procedure is expressed by the phrase nemo judex in-causa soa, that a person may not be a judge in their own cause or in a matter in which they have an interest, whether financial or otherwise. All sides to ensure a fair procedure must have an opportunity to prepare their case and be treated in an even-handed manner. Thus in the Dublin Weel Woman Centre Versus Ireland, the Supreme Court held that the High Court Judge Carroll, ought not adjudicate in a case concerning access to information on abortion n as she had previously as Chairwoman of the second omission on the status of women, written a letter to the Taoiseach expressing the support of the commission for right to access to abortion counseling and information services speaking for the Supreme Court, Denham J pointed out that there had been no suggestion that this letter would have resulted in any actual bias on the part of Carroll J in adjudicating the points of law at issue in the case; rather a Judge should offer to rescue himself or herself where there was even an appearance of bias. This test of appearance of bias rather then actual bias is consistent with the constitutional declaration in article 34.5.1 “to execute the judicial office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. This decision in Dublin Well-woman indicates the high standards of impartiality thus required. Judicial Independence in court also means that the Judge cannot be influenced by the state. This is seen where the court might force the Constitution to be amended. The Judge must be allowed to go against the state if he/she feels the state is wrong. In the Attorney General Versus X, the high court granted the Attorney General an injunction prohibiting the fourteen-year-old girl from leaving the state to have an abortion. It appeared that in the constitution, abortion was allowed in limited circumstances, to which the Supreme Court agreed, because the right to life of the mother was at risk. In response to the X case three proposed amendments to article 40.3.3 were put to a referendum in late l992. Two of these were passed, but after eight years no legislation on abortion was brought in. Mr. Justice Niall McCarthy lambasted the Government when he described this failure as “no longer unfortunate, it is inexcusable”. This i a prime example of how Judges are independent from the state in court. Until recently it was unthinkable for a judge to give a comment about a case in which he had been involved. The view is that Judges made decisions but any implications were not matters for them as the Judiciary should stand aloof. In l992 public comments of O’Hanlon J on proposed changes in Irish law on abortion, resulted in his resigning from the position as President of the Law Reform Commission. Although it did not lead to removal of him as a judge it shows what can happen if they become embroiled publicly in cases on which they hold strong views.
CONCLUSION:
The Court system is very detailed and precise in that it doesn’t seem to have any loopholes. However it should have been set up by the Constitution instead of leaving it until the Courts Act in 1961. There is also a clear guideline on how Judges should be appointed which sets a very high standard of qualifications for the appointment of a Judge. However it is clear that the vacant positions are only available to a select few. There are some faults in our system such as the Minister having the power to introduce Legislation after they have been passed. This can be seen in the Attorney General versus X case mentioned previously. I believe the separation of powers is also imperfect, as all departments are interdependent. However I believe this can be a good thing that the powers i.e. legislature, executive and the judicial, are not separated as we the people, benefit from it with Justice.