Have I got this right?

EdgarAllenPoo

Listening to the news on the government's plan to save money and I heard that all civil servants won't be receiving their pay increases and those that had already begun to receive their increases i.e. Judges would not continue to receive their increased pay.

Could that not be seen as contrary to Article 35.5?

445279.ie

Article 35.5 states "The renumeration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office"

They're not reducing their wages, just not getting the increase until 2010

EdgarAllenPoo

They've already started to receive the pay rise so next week when their pay slip reflects the fact that they have gone back to their pre increase wage is that not a reduction or am I being too literal?

445279.ie

What I understand is that they were getting it on a phased basis, eg 5% this June and 3% in September (they're just made up numbers so don't quote me).

Therefore what they got paid last week will be the same every week until at least 2010.

Stirling

Seriously doubt they'd be succesful if they tried. What was that case where the widow of a Judge took a case arguing that the imposition of Income Tax would amount to a violation of Article 35.5? Long time since I've read it but think the essence of the decison was that a violation would have to involve a reduction applied to the present circumstances in an unequal manner. Therefore the fact that Income Tax was being applied across the board meant that it was being applied fairly, think it would follow that once their wages are not reduced a failure to increase them would be acceptable provided that they are not the only group not receiving an increase as I think that could be seen as victimisation bordering on an attempt to rein in some errant behaviour.

Always thought that article was flawed because it prevents reduction, negative disincentive, but places no limitations on increases which could easily be employed as an incentive or reward for certain judicial behaviour.

johnnyskeleton

Stirling wrote: »

Always thought that article was flawed because it prevents reduction, negative disincentive, but places no limitations on increases which could easily be employed as an incentive or reward for certain judicial behaviour.

Good point.

Another tenuous argument is that if their wages stay the same, this constitutes a real decrease in wages as inflation over the last few years means that the salary set a few years ago now buys less.

But I imagine that however the law stands, the judges are unlikely to take issue with the decrease, given the state of the economy.