Judge's pay referendum

anonymous_joe

laoch na mona wrote: »

the judges might object

That's why 85% of them already took a voluntary paycut.

Harry Angstrom

It's about time those pricks in the legal profession had some manners put on them.

FoxT

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's about time those pricks in the legal profession had some manners put on them.

AH is that way

---

>>

anonymous_joe

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It's about time those pricks in the legal profession had some manners put on them.

Very mature and helpful.

Harry Angstrom

FoxT wrote: »

AH is that way

---

>>

So, to be accepted in this thread I have to toe the line about "separation of powers" and all that bull, rub my chin, and express the opinion that the State is wrong to interfere with the judical system, whether it be with regard to judges' pay or the setting up of tribunals??

Well, I'm speaking from the point of view with regard to my own experiences with the legal profession over the years and the shysters that I've encountered. Take it from me, The Law Society is a complete and utter joke.

seamus

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

So, to be accepted in this thread I have to toe the line about "separation of powers" and all that bull

No, you just have to express your opinion like an adult and not a Joe Duffy listener.

On what basis do you think that this referendum has merit to warrant voting "yes"?

Note that I ask with no particular slant or biase. I haven't made up my mind which way to vote on this particular amendment.

tails_naf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Populist stunt and a very misguided one at that.

I have no problem with Judge's pay being linked to some financial indicator whereby their pay would be automatically increased/decreased, but putting this power in the hands of the legislature represents a massive breach of separation of powers and leave a huge potential for exploitation by the government - that is, the Judge will become the hand of the government in power at the time because that's who controls their pay.

A swift end to justice in this country when the clowns in government have the judiciary in their pocket :mad:

How are salary increases allowed for then? Surely allowing them is as much influence as allowing decreases.
Also, I believe the text is that this will be linked to economic indicators, rather than at the 'will' of the ruling party..

seamus

tails_naf wrote: »

Also, I believe the text is that this will be linked to economic indicators, rather than at the 'will' of the ruling party..

No, not necessarily;

Where, before or after the enactment of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges.

So where the Government has made reductions to public servants' pay in the public interest, then they can optionally choose to levy a proportionate reduction on the pay of judges.

Actually on re-reading it, I'm not loving it. I have an issue with the implication that the reduction in judges' pay is seemingly an optional addition to a reduction in PS pay.
I was under the impression that it was an automatic reduction whenever the PS pay was reduced - which would be fine IMO - but the idea that they can hold off on reducing judges' pay doesn't sit with me. It allows scope for, "Do X, Y & Z or we will cut your pay like we've done for the rest of the PS".

Can anyone confirm that I'm reading that correctly?

tails_naf

recedite wrote: »

Presumably because an honest judge can still remain honest after all judges get a pay rise/bribe. Whereas if all judges get a severe pay cut, only the crooks will remain because their main income is "under the counter" and the official pay rate is less important. The honest ones would leave and get jobs elsewhere.

This seems like a pretty loose argument TBH. If Judges' salary was cut to the point where they would change career, I think it would stand out like a sore thumb in terms of international pay scales for Judges - so it just does not stand that any govt could pull this off, as a way of controlling the judiciary.

Also, the fact that the pay cut has to be linked to other public sectors maintains some of the separation, unless you think the whole PS would be cut simply to take a shot at the judges?

Finally, you have a pretty idealistic view of the 'separation' we have at the moment. The legal profession and politicians are so entwined at present - just look at all the tribunals, pumping money into lawyer's pockets (millions per day!), for no tangible return!

tails_naf

seamus wrote: »

No, not necessarily;

So where the Government has made reductions to public servants' pay in the public interest, then they can optionally choose to levy a proportionate reduction on the pay of judges.

Actually on re-reading it, I'm not loving it. I have an issue with the implication that the reduction in judges' pay is seemingly an optional addition to a reduction in PS pay.
I was under the impression that it was an automatic reduction whenever the PS pay was reduced - which would be fine IMO - but the idea that they can hold off on reducing judges' pay doesn't sit with me. It allows scope for, "Do X, Y & Z or we will cut your pay like we've done for the rest of the PS".

Can anyone confirm that I'm reading that correctly?

Ok, but they cant cut it more/without cutting the rest of the PS first? That leaves it pretty safe - no one will be leaving due to the salary being too low!

recedite

Good article by Estelle Feldman here.

It's clear from reading it that the existing wording allows for judges pay to be reduced in line with other PS workers already; The O'Byrne case of 1959 established that a judge should pay whatever is the going rate for taxes and levies; "to pay taxes on his income on the same basis as other citizens and thus to contribute to the expenses of government cannot be said to be an attack upon his independence"
I think everyone will agree, that's all we want.

So why is Alan Shatter trying to bring in the optional power to reduce the pay of unspecified "classes" of people?
Could "Judges" be one of those classes?
On RTE's primetime last night he mentioned "classes or pay grades" but those are not the words in the proposed amendment.

Maybe this has nothing to do with judges. Maybe its really about downwards benchmarking for any and all groups in the public service?

Duke Leonal Felmet

recedite wrote: »

Good article by Estelle Feldman here.

It's clear from reading it that the existing wording allows for judges pay to be reduced in line with other PS workers already; The O'Byrne case of 1959 established that a judge should pay whatever is the going rate for taxes and levies; "to pay taxes on his income on the same basis as other citizens and thus to contribute to the expenses of government cannot be said to be an attack upon his independence"
I think everyone will agree, that's all we want.

So why is Alan Shatter trying to bring in the optional power to reduce the pay of unspecified "classes" of people?
Could "Judges" be one of those classes?
On RTE's primetime last night he mentioned "classes or pay grades" but those are not the words in the proposed amendment.

Maybe this has nothing to do with judges. Maybe its really about downwards benchmarking for any and all groups in the public service?

Maybe the government should be more open and frank about it. They seem to be awfully quiet on these referenda.

FreudianSlippers

Psychedelic wrote: »

The main argument against this referendum seems to be that Government can bribe/threaten judges with pay increases/decreases to make sure the judges do what the Government wants. But wouldn't this mean that the Government could be constantly raising/lowering judge's pay? Surely this would be really obvious and easily correlated to the cases the Government would be trying to influence? And I assume they wouldn't be able to raise/lower an individual judge's pay, so how can they influence a judge's decision in a particular case?

Well that's a secondary argument really. The base point is that this amendment to the constitution effectively puts a rather large crack in the fundamental concept of separation of powers that our country is based on as a constitutional democracy. It may seem insignificant and an academic point but it really represents a real danger in that we are effectively giving a go ahead for the legislative branch to absorb more power than they currently have or need. This is especially true when you consider the proposed 30th amendment.

carveone

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Maybe the government should be more open and frank about it. They seem to be awfully quiet on these referenda.

I agree. And that worries me. Which is why when I received my voting card this morning I read the referendum wording about 10 times. And then read the posts by FreudianSlippers. I'll be voting No to this.

Initially you think "hey, this is about Judges pay. I'd be for cutting that a bit". And then you discover the O’Byrne v Minister of Finance rulings and you think - 35.5 doesn't really prevent sector wide reductions in pay (along with Judges). It's there to prevent specific reductions in pay as an attempt to interfere with judicial independence.

(that's what I think - I'm often wrong though!)

And then you think when the constitution was initially put to the people, there was a lot of thought on it. Maybe they got some pieces wrong and some are obviously reflections of that time. But some, like 35.5, weren't put in for the laugh and we should think carefully before replacing it with vague wordings that allow governments to mess with judges.

No doubt to your horror, I'd ask what would happen if there was a Sinn Fein government and they decided to slash Judges pay to make sure an Act of Enablement* would pass through (sorry, last time I mention Hitler honest!).

I'm reminded of that Family Guy episode (which is unlikely to be aired again) where Stewie does a little song and dance to distract the airport screener from looking at the weapons he has in the bag going through the scanner. The Presidential campaign sure is distracting...

*Edit: I only mentioned that as a concern as to where undiscussed referenda can lead. It's not really supposed to be an attack on SF specifically. Just in case anyone takes offence.

FreudianSlippers

FoxT wrote: »

The judges pay referendum is not sufficient to ensure that citizens have an accountable judiciary with a controllable cost base.

The Brian Curtin case highlighted a far more serious issue than the issue of pay - there is no practicable, timely, way to remove a judge from office for conduct which reduces or eliminates the public confidence in him.

In my view there needs to be an independent group responsible for managing judges pay & also for implementing appropriate disciplinary measures & professional standards, up to & including dismissal & reduction/elimination of salary,pension,or other benefits, as appropriate.

I'm no legal pro, so not sure of the details of how this should be done, but as a citizen, I would find this to be far more desirable than a simple black/white referendum on pay.

Interestingly the judges themselves stated a need for the ability to control pay. But they suggested a body independent of the Oireachtas that would do this.

These 2 proposed amendments are a power grab by the Oireachtas and lead to a slippery slope.

FreudianSlippers

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

FoxT wrote: »

AH is that way

---

>>

So, to be accepted in this thread I have to toe the line about "separation of powers" and all that bull, rub my chin, and express the opinion that the State is wrong to interfere with the judical system, whether it be with regard to judges' pay or the setting up of tribunals??

Well, I'm speaking from the point of view with regard to my own experiences with the legal profession over the years and the shysters that I've encountered. Take it from me, The Law Society is a complete and utter joke.

Firstly, the judiciary is a part of the state and is supposed to be an equally powerful arm of the state to the legislature.

Secondly, it is wrong for one arm of the state to unduly interfere in another; it's a fundamental aspect of modern democracy.

Thirdly, what on Earth does the Law Society have to do with judge's pay?

carveone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Interestingly the judges themselves stated a need for the ability to control pay. But they suggested a body independent of the Oireachtas that would do this.

I would have considerably less of a problem with that path. I also tend to wonder how much referenda like this cost - I mean if it saves €1m and costs €2m then...

These 2 proposed amendments are a power grab by the Oireachtas and lead to a slippery slope.

The second one is just as alarming. I remember when Proinsias De Rossa read out telephone numbers of UK abortion clinics into the Dáil record by dint of his Oireachtas privilege. Whether you agree with that or not, it was done to piss SPUC off and probably annoyed the hell out of other TDs. Could he now be taken to task? Or threatened with such if his action was out of line with what the Taoiseach of the day decided it should be?

Dunno - have to read more

FreudianSlippers

carveone wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Interestingly the judges themselves stated a need for the ability to control pay. But they suggested a body independent of the Oireachtas that would do this.

I would have considerably less of a problem with that path. I also tend to wonder how much referenda like this cost - I mean if it saves €1m and costs €2m then...

This point has been made and it turns out the referendum costs will far outweigh any immediate potential savings.

These 2 proposed amendments are a power grab by the Oireachtas and lead to a slippery slope.

The second one is just as alarming. I remember when Proinsias De Rossa read out telephone numbers of UK abortion clinics into the Dáil record by dint of his Oireachtas privilege. Whether you agree with that or not, it was done to piss SPUC off and probably annoyed the hell out of other TDs. Could he now be taken to task? Or threatened with such if his action was out of line with what the Taoiseach of the day decided it should be?

Dunno - have to read more

yeah I'll be starting a thread on the second of there isn't one already when I'm not on my phone. The touch website isn't THAT good yet

swordofislam

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Interestingly the judges themselves stated a need for the ability to control pay. But they suggested a body independent of the Oireachtas that would do this.

These 2 proposed amendments are a power grab by the Oireachtas and lead to a slippery slope.

Curious that their lordships didn't think there was a problem when their pay was going up.
Why do their lordships think that they are above the people? They are civil servants like any other civil servant and they will damn well dance when the piper is paid to play!

Manach

Unfortunately the piper in this case is not the end taxpayer, but the government in power at that time.

pog it

I want to discuss this specifically.

1. In the context of 85% of judges having already taken a voluntary pay cut, what is the real reason the government wants the power to cut their pay even more?

2. Secondly how are the Irish people accepting this and at the same time not demanding cuts to the pay and expenses of politicians?

I'm posing no.1 to those in the know and to anyone with their own opinion and no.2 to those people here who are going to vote yes to cutting judges pay. Do you feel good about yourself voting to cut judges pay and doing nothing to call for a cut in politicians' pay?

pog it

Have just read the excellent points made by people in the other thread I started.

I guess I'm just pIssed off that more Irish people are not asking questions about this. It's a case of their voting yes to cutting pay of judges, without giving it any further thought and looking for the motive behind it.

The journal.ie alarmingly has an overwhelming amount of Yes voters.

Is the only good thing to come out of this upcoming vote going to be that Gay Mitchell will not be our next President?

I despair.

glic71rods46t0

pog it wrote: »

Have just read the excellent points made by people in the other thread I started.

I guess I'm just pIssed off that more Irish people are not asking questions about this. It's a case of their voting yes to cutting pay of judges, without giving it any further thought and looking for the motive behind it.

The journal.ie alarmingly has an overwhelming amount of Yes voters.

Is the only good thing to come out of this upcoming vote going to be that Gay Mitchell will not be our next President?

I despair.

I guess that people want to correct a constitutional anonomly which restricts the government from imposing pay cuts on all public servants.
You claim 85% (I dont have any figures so I'll accept yours) of judges already took the pay cut - I'm voting yes to ensure that the 15% who didn't are treated equally under the law as everyone else.

Manach

fp4zwk71ongl59 wrote: »

I guess that people want to correct a constitutional anonomly which restricts the government from imposing pay cuts on all public servants.

My understanding (which I'm open to correction on) is that this was actual designed into the constitutional framework as a means of stopping Judges being punished for making controversial decisions against the government of the day. This is known as the doctrine of separation of powers, and is common in all democratic systems.

glic71rods46t0

Manach wrote: »

My understanding (which I'm open to correction on) is that this was actual designed into the constitutional framework as a means of stopping Judges being punished for making controversial decisions against the government of the day. This is known as the doctrine of separation of powers, and is common in all democratic systems.

Yes, I think your understanding is correct. There should be protection against arbitrary reductions in pay but certainly not a prohibition on the imposition of pay cuts which are being applied to all public servants in times of austerity.

Dirk Gently

There's a lot of hot air and scaremongering going on about this issue, mostly from people with a vested interest in it. The fact is we don't have a legitimate separation of powers anyway. All this does is amend our already bad "separation of powers" to allow a qualified reduction of pay in line with other public servants. The fact remains that judges are appointed by politicians and are some of the highest paid in the world. They'll still be given the nod by politicians and well paid after the referendum, they won't be getting part time evening shifts in burger king to cope with the hit.

Raising judges pay and appointing political sympathisers or old friends isn't exactly great practice but suddenly when a very modest reduction to bring them in line with public policy is suggested and we hear dooms-day cries of the oppressed. Judging by some of the pleas to save civilised society coming from legal people it would appear that only by upwards only pay reviews will independence be safe guarded and should we allow the amendment politicians will be sitting in the public gallery during hearings pointing sly fingers at judges reminding them they'll be on minimum wage the next day if they don't find in favour of the state. Do they currently sit there and wink and give thumbs up signs to give them a pay rise if they find in favour of the state? It's just the same weak separation of powers with scope to decrease as well as increase pay, qualified by doing it in line with current policy across the public sector.

If you want a separation of powers then push for a true independent body to appoint judges and set pay grades, take it out of the hands of party politicians altogether, but I can't help feeling like the legal folks are happy enough with our weak system when it isolates them in an upwards only bubble. Present me with an option for an independent and transparent body to review pay grades outside of political control and I'll gladly vote for it.

I'm voting in favour of reducing the pay in line with public policy, because I think it's just a qualified adjustment to an already bad system, not a dooms-day change from a good system to a bad system. There's no option to take pay out of the hands of politicians on the voting card. It is unfortunate that most people will vote it through just to stick it to judges but I'm comfortable voting for it myself.

You're either opposed to politicians interfering in judges pay or you're only opposed to politicians rounding down pay and have no problem with them rounding it up. It appears like the doomsday preachers only have a problem with the latter.

If someone can prove to me that government can isolate an individual judge involved in a high interest case and reduce his pay based on a negative ruling then I'll change my vote.

Not related to the referendum but I'm also looking forward to see what, if anything will be done to open up the legal fees profession in general to greater transparency in costs and more open to competition, largely I'll admit because I kind of enjoy watching legal reps on debate programmes come up with absurd denials but delivering them in a hard necked and stoney faced fashion to protect their monetary interests. In all seriousness though, the legal system is a largely sheltered profession and in the interests of transparency needs to be regulated better. More justice, less stringing out cases and racking up phantom fees.

Einhard

Manach wrote: »

My understanding (which I'm open to correction on) is that this was actual designed into the constitutional framework as a means of stopping Judges being punished for making controversial decisions against the government of the day. This is known as the doctrine of separation of powers, and is common in all democratic systems.

As another poster said, it's so that 100% of judges take the cuts. I don't think the same position would be adopted if 85% of teachers or nurses took the cuts, so why with judges? I know people will raise the separation of powers, but from my reading of the proposed amendment, judges' pay will be cut in a situation where there are general reductions in renumeration, and only proportionate to the other cuts. If I'm correct in reading it this way, then I don't see the problem.

astrofool

Judges are getting paid out of the public purse anyway, unless they work for free, and the goodness of their hearts, there would never be true seperation of powers.

nesf

Einhard wrote: »

I know people will raise the separation of powers, but from my reading of the proposed amendment, judges' pay will be cut in a situation where there are general reductions in renumeration, and only proportionate to the other cuts. If I'm correct in reading it this way, then I don't see the problem.

It's more ambiguous than that. All it says is paycuts affecting a class of people. It does limit this or expand on this to say what a suitable class of people are. If it said that only PS wide paycuts applied to judges then I think people would have less problems with it.

Regardless, decisions on judges pay shouldn't be up to the Government at all to begin with. An independent body should be in charge of such decisions.

opo

nesf wrote: »

Regardless, decisions on judges pay shouldn't be up to the Government at all to begin with. An independent body should be in charge of such decisions.

How would you ensure the independent body is really independent and how would you fund it, given the whole point of the excercise is saving money?

FreudianSlippers

A very good article that I believe everyone should read before voting on this referendum.

Getting to Grips with the Judges’ Pay Referendum, by Fiona de Londras

anymore

Manach wrote: »

My understanding (which I'm open to correction on) is that this was actual designed into the constitutional framework as a means of stopping Judges being punished for making controversial decisions against the government of the day. This is known as the doctrine of separation of powers, and is common in all democratic systems.

How can there be anything such as a separation of powers when so many judges were members of or supporters of political parties. We irish people might not be the brightest people in the world but we certainly are not as stupid as our judiciary and thier sycophantic supporters think we are.

anymore

nesf wrote: »

It's more ambiguous than that. All it says is paycuts affecting a class of people. It does limit this or expand on this to say what a suitable class of people are. If it said that only PS wide paycuts applied to judges then I think people would have less problems with it.

Regardless, decisions on judges pay shouldn't be up to the Government at all to begin with. An independent body should be in charge of such decisions.

An independent body appointed by politicians or the legal profession ??????
Please, please. The legal profession is one of the greatest example of self- regulation for the purposes of promoting the self interests of its members against the rest of society. Any idea of how hard it is to get an Irish solicitor to act for you if you wish to take legal action against another solicitor or legal firm ?
The legal profession needs to have its monopoly destroyed.

FreudianSlippers

Fiona de Londras writes an excellent article on this:

It has become very fashionable to tut and shake one’s head at the mention of the word ‘judges’ in Ireland over the past few years. They are, it is suggested, a divided, over protected and selfish elite who refuse to ‘take the pain’ and do not understand what is happening in the (paradoxically mythical) “real world”. They are insulated by the Constitution from having to bear the full brunt of the recession—the story goes—and so we must have a constitutional amendment to make sure that judges’ pay can be reduced and that they can be subjected to the same levels of taxation, pension levies and all the rest of it as everyone else. And so we now have a wording [...] from the Department of Justice for the “judges’ pay referendum” which will take place in October of this year. In this post I want to outline a few concerns about the wording, but also a broader concern about the discourse that has recently developed regarding the Irish judiciary; a discourse that I think should be of concern to us all. Let me start this post, however, by acknowledging that my intellectual position is very firmly one that distrusts politics and champions a muscular and non-deferential judiciary; a position that no doubt colours my view on this issue to at least some extent.

Proposed Article 35.5.3, however, has the air of a freshman constitutional law seminar problem about it. Paul MacMahon has already outlined the possible problems with this here, and really they are immediately obvious. What are “classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money”?? And need the law only “state[] that those reductions are in the public interest” or must they be bona fide in the public interest? Because here is the thing: if this amendment is done it cannot be found unconstitutional. It is well established in Irish law that an amendment to the Constitution stands provided the amending process outlined in Article 46 is properly followed (there is a copy of the Constitution here). Thus, if a law is passed reducing the pay of, say, departmental managers and judges and is said to be “in the public interest” would any court really be in a position to say that law is unconstitutional based on the new Article 35.5.3? It seems to me to leave entirely too much leeway for uncertainty and for vindictive reductions in judicial remuneration.

I am quite sure that there are those reading this who are rolling their eyes and making the (entirely reasonable) point that as a political matter Irish parliaments are most unlikely to pass a law that reduces judicial pay mala fides, but the point is this: constitutional design is about setting the parameters of governance in such a way as to ensure that these kinds of rupturing scenarios simply cannot arise. Our Constitution is not one that deals with every scenario that can arise, but it is a relatively rigid one inasmuch as the operation of the organs of the state and especially their relationships to one another are relatively clearly delineated. In my view, the proposed amendment threatens to undermine that.

(my emphasis)

[...] they strengthen the hand of the Dáil and weaken the hand of those with an essential role in braking the Dáil’s power. This may not be something that concerns everyone, and I readily concede that my intellectual position may make me see this as more problematic than it is, but to some extent at least I find it extraordinary that we are not generally more concerned with the potential for this ‘movement’ to reduce transparency, reduce accountability, increase cabinet power, and radically change our constitutional balance.

(my emphasis)

My scepticism about politics is shining bright at this point, I appreciate, but the discourse around the judges’ pay referendum suggests to me that this is fundamentally about a kind of rebalancing towards the Dáil. The overwhelming tenor of the “debate” so far has been to present judges as hyper-protected, selfish, divided and elitist and when judges tried to speak back in a collective voice (the only way they can, their constitutional position being as it is) through a memorandum the reaction was scornful. Judges cannot, generally, speak back when political and politicised criticisms are levied against them because they cannot know what they will be asked to adjudicate on in the future. We should be grateful that in this country we have a judiciary that, as Chief Justice Denham said in her statement last week, values and appreciates the importance of judicial silence about some things to preserve the integrity of the system. But this silence comes at a cost; the difficulty is in seeing this is a cost to ‘us’ (the people) rather than to ‘them’ (the judiciary).

There is a reason why the Constitution preserves the independence of the judiciary by, among other things, protecting them from reductions in pay. It is not an elitist conspiracy. It is because an independent judiciary is what protects us as a people from populist, dangerous, unconstitutional actions by the state. If you use contraception, or appreciate your right to have a say in the development of the foundational treaties of the European Union, or agree that a suicidal teenage rape victim ought not to be prevented from having an abortion for example, you should remember that these things are all possible because of an independent judiciary that stepped in where an inert political system would not.

There are legitimate criticisms that can be levied against judges: the judiciary is insufficiently diverse, on occasion judges at District and Circuit court levels in particular say and do callous and unjust things, and, yes, perhaps judges are paid too much. The solution to these things is not a broadly worded constitutional provision of the kind proposed. It is a clearer and more transparent judicial appointments system (which has been blocked by politics), a judicial council for disciplinary and other reasons (again, superior court judges want this), and new pay levels for newly appointed judges (which is entirely possible without constitutional amendment). In my view, the proposed amendment is far too great a cost for us to bear especially in the context of a Dáil that seems determined to achieve a position at the top of the constitutional pile.

(my emphasis)


Furthermore, to say there is no true separation of powers in Ireland is just inaccurate; quite simply it is plain to see that we have a legislature that makes laws that the executive enacts and the judiciary enforces.
I would agree that the President and Council of State should be a functioning Executive in order to preserve the separation - as there could be conflict where the judiciary and executive disagree.

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A very good article that I believe everyone should read before voting on this referendum.

Getting to Grips with the Judges’ Pay Referendum, by Fiona de Londras

A quick glance through it shows it to be the same self -serving nonsense as most of the articles that have appeared in the press about the subject.
When greed is being elevated into a constitutional issue, it is time to remove the legal professions monopoly and self -regulation.

FreudianSlippers

anymore wrote: »

A quick glance through it shows it to be the same self -serving nonsense as most of the articles that have appeared in the press about the subject.
When greed is being elevated into a constitutional issue, it is time to remove the legal professions monopoly and self -regulation.

What monopoly? There is only 1 firm of solicitors in the country? One barrister?

Even at it's most basic point, you'd be discussing a duopoly (Law Society and Bar Council). Still doesn't make any sense considering barristers are independent and self-employed.

I also don't see what that has to do with Judge's pay? Are they now regulated by solicitors firms and not the state?

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Fiona de Londras writes an excellent article on this:

(my emphasis)
(my emphasis)
(my emphasis)


Furthermore, to say there is no true separation of powers in Ireland is just inaccurate; quite simply it is plain to see that we have a legislature that makes laws that the executive enacts and the judiciary enforces.
I would agree that the President and Council of State should be a functioning Executive in order to preserve the separation - as there could be conflict where the judiciary and executive disagree.

First of all this article is nothing but self serving propoganda. Reform of the Judiciary has been blocked by the legal profession itself. Phoenix magazine is one of the few publications in this country which has had the backbone to highlight the appalling efforts by the legal profession to protect its own interests at the cost of the interests of wider society. The author fails to acknowledge the extent and influnce the legal profession has over the body politics - do the names Brian Cowen, Brian Lenihan, Michael MCDowell mean anything to anybody ? Instras we get this ludicrous scenario of the Judiciary vs. politicians ! Laughable stuff.

DB21

In relation to Judge's pay, I'm going to post something my Step-Dad said this morning, which genuinely changed my view on this issue; Judge's need a salary that is large enough to prevent them turning to corruption as a way to make ends meet. Our Judicial system, in my opinion, is one of the cleanest in the world. Yes, there have been cases of corruption in the past, but not nearly as bad as places like Italy where Judges may have ties with the Mafia, or certain countries where Judges are paid off by government officials to lock up any noise makers. Lets assume this bill passes. Judge's pay is slashed. Suddenly (yes, I am aware that Judges, like everyone, should adapt, but here me out) a few can't afford their bills. What then? Say one of our infamous gang leaders makes it worth a Judge's while to throw out some cases against his friends, or be lenient in sentencing. Corruption spreads like a virus. Suddenly the majority are on the take, and the country starts to run into serious legal problems. Laws aren't being upheld by the courts. This leads to anarchy. I know it's a big leap, but it's feasible if the pay cut is severe enough. I was originally a solid yes vote. I'm reconsidering my decision. I hope everyone that votes takes time to do the same.

FreudianSlippers

anymore wrote: »

First of all this article is nothing but self serving propoganda. Reform of the Judiciary has been blocked by the legal profession itself. Phoenix magazine is one of the few publications in this country which has had the backbone to highlight the appalling efforts by the legal profession to protect its own interests at the cost of the interests of wider society. The author fails to acknowledge the extent and influnce the legal profession has over the body politics - do the names Brian Cowen, Brian Lenihan, Michael MCDowell mean anything to anybody ? Instras we get this ludicrous scenario of the Judiciary vs. politicians ! Laughable stuff.

It may be laughable to you with no understanding of the workings of our country and other democratic countries, but this poses a real problem.
You seem to be very confused between the legal profession and the judiciary as well. Your own self-serving interest has obviously blinded you to the actual facts of the situation, rather than your perceived "preservation of interests".

Quite simply, the costs of giving the legislative branch of government powers which are outside the scope of the intended powers of that branch is unconstitutional - amending the constitution to remove this unconstitutionality puts all power in the Oireachtas.

swordofislam

DB21 wrote: »

In relation to Judge's pay, I'm going to post something my Step-Dad said this morning, which genuinely changed my view on this issue; Judge's need a salary that is large enough to prevent them turning to corruption as a way to make ends meet. Our Judicial system, in my opinion, is one of the cleanest in the world. Yes, there have been cases of corruption in the past, but not nearly as bad as places like Italy where Judges may have ties with the Mafia, or certain countries where Judges are paid off by government officials to lock up any noise makers. Lets assume this bill passes. Judge's pay is slashed. Suddenly (yes, I am aware that Judges, like everyone, should adapt, but here me out) a few can't afford their bills. What then? Say one of our infamous gang leaders makes it worth a Judge's while to throw out some cases against his friends, or be lenient in sentencing. Corruption spreads like a virus. Suddenly the majority are on the take, and the country starts to run into serious legal problems. Laws aren't being upheld by the courts. This leads to anarchy. I know it's a big leap, but it's feasible if the pay cut is severe enough. I was originally a solid yes vote. I'm reconsidering my decision. I hope everyone that votes takes time to do the same.

So if we pay judges 175,000 a year instead of 225,000 a year they'll take bribes? Sack them so and get honest men to do the job.

In fact arguably they have already been bought by their inflated pay and especially a 40 80ths pension after 15 years. This is going to pass by a mile.

FreudianSlippers

DB21 wrote: »

In relation to Judge's pay, I'm going to post something my Step-Dad said this morning, which genuinely changed my view on this issue; Judge's need a salary that is large enough to prevent them turning to corruption as a way to make ends meet. Our Judicial system, in my opinion, is one of the cleanest in the world. Yes, there have been cases of corruption in the past, but not nearly as bad as places like Italy where Judges may have ties with the Mafia, or certain countries where Judges are paid off by government officials to lock up any noise makers. Lets assume this bill passes. Judge's pay is slashed. Suddenly (yes, I am aware that Judges, like everyone, should adapt, but here me out) a few can't afford their bills. What then? Say one of our infamous gang leaders makes it worth a Judge's while to throw out some cases against his friends, or be lenient in sentencing. Corruption spreads like a virus. Suddenly the majority are on the take, and the country starts to run into serious legal problems. Laws aren't being upheld by the courts. This leads to anarchy. I know it's a big leap, but it's feasible if the pay cut is severe enough. I was originally a solid yes vote. I'm reconsidering my decision. I hope everyone that votes takes time to do the same.

The problem is, and I don't know how to put it more clearly than this, not in relation to Judge's pay being linked by some independent method to a general rise and fall in Public Sector wages.

Nobody is saying that Judges shouldn't be exposed to pension levy or reduction in pay in line with other PS reductions.

The problem here is twofold:
1) there already exists in common law a method of doing what this bill proposes; that renders this bill moot. So why are they doing it? Well that leads to...
2) the proposed amendment is vague enough that it represents excessive power being vested in the Oireachtas. This is a slippery slope whereby the Oireachtas leeches more and more powers from other branches of government (see 30th Amendment Bill 2011) whereby the members of the Oireachtas are now their OWN judiciary and have effectively ended the fundamental cornerstone of this country - the separation of powers.

FreudianSlippers

Irish Times

THERE IS no doubt that fairness dictates that the judiciary should take pay cuts in line with others who work for the State. Judges work extremely hard, but so too do nurses, teachers and many other public servants. Everyone must cut their cloth.

If the only question facing the Irish people on October 27th was simply whether judges should take a pay cut, then, of course, people should emphatically vote yes. However, this is not the key issue in the 29th Amendment to the Irish Constitution. Instead, the referendum will ask whether we are in favour of jeopardising the independence of the Irish judiciary, and consequently, delivering a blow to Irish democracy.

Article 35.5 of the Constitution reads: “The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.” On the face of this language, one might excuse the Government for believing that the Constitution prohibits them from cutting the judiciary’s wages.

However, the Constitution is not intended to be read like an Ikea instruction manual. For many years, in line with liberal democratic thought, the Irish Supreme Court has looked to the purpose behind the actual language used in provisions of the Constitution.

In O’Byrne v Minister of Finance the court held that the purpose of article 35.5 was to protect the judiciary’s independence from the influence of the executive/legislature (if one can find a genuine distinction between the two in Ireland). With this in mind, if the current Government were to pass legislation reducing judicial pay in line with pay cuts made throughout the public sector, it would almost be beyond belief to think that a Supreme Court judge would interpret such legislation as being an attempt to interfere with their independence.

That being so, such legislation would not be unconstitutional, judges’ pay would be reduced and we would not be faced with the proposition of giving the government wide powers to cut judicial pay, which is open to serious abuse.

Democracy is a value which needs to be earned and nurtured. Many states bestow upon themselves the title of democracy because they realise the value in being seen as a democracy. But, of course, just calling the state a democracy is not enough. The state has to put in place procedures and systems that legitimise government.

The recognition of fundamental human rights is unquestionably a condition which needs to be fulfilled in a true democracy. These rights must be recognised regardless of what the majority believe. Indeed, the only reason majority voting is often fair in a society is because it takes place in a context where rights are defended by the courts. This is why it is a crucial principle of any democracy that the judiciary be independent and free from the executive/legislature’s influence.

It has been recognised for some time that the power of the government to lower a judge’s wages while on the bench could give rise to situations where judges were punished for making decisions the government did not like, such as striking down a legislative act as being unconstitutional. This would leave the protection of rights in Ireland in a perilous position.

And make no mistake about it, we do depend upon the judiciary and their being independent to protect our rights and Ireland would be a very different place today without some important decisions of the Supreme Court over the past 60 years. Rights to bodily integrity, privacy, access to the courts and legal representation on criminal charges are all rights which the Supreme Court has recognised in the face of opposition by various Irish governments.

Democracy withers where the citizenry take it for granted. Those who do not quite see Enda Kenny as the dictator type are probably right, but such a view is short-sighted. The current economic climate is the perfect environment for radicalism to be fostered. Indeed the rise of extreme parties on the left and the right throughout Europe is becoming more and more evident.

We cannot know what is around the corner and we cannot leave our democracy to chance. We must continually nurture our democracy by ensuring core principles are being adhered to, and we must remain constantly vigilant against anything which threatens those core principles.

And why is the core principle of judicial independence being threatened in the current instance? Is it because the Government has been deprived of competent legal advice? Or is it an act of bravado on the Government’s behalf to demonstrate it is in touch with its citizenry by putting the judges back in their place and showing them they are not a special class of citizen.

But where is the evidence that judges ever thought they were a special class? They certainly did not see themselves as a special class of citizen in the O’Byrne case I referred to above, and [B]it was the government which decided not to levy judges pensions, hence in the mind of voters giving the impression that judges were a special class of citizen. What an impressive, yet sad, sleight of hand it would be if the Government tricked us into enabling them to interfere with judicial independence on the basis of an impression they themselves had implanted in the minds of voters.[/B]

Maybe I am wrong about what the Supreme Court would do when faced with legislation to cut its wages. However, is it not worth investigating what it would do? An expedited piece of legislation, referred to the Supreme Court by the President, could be adjudicated upon before this disastrous referendum is to take place, and at much less expense to the people of Ireland than holding a referendum.

In doing this, we would have nothing to lose but everything to gain. Until the Government tries to pass such legislation, it should not ask us to strengthen its power over the judiciary. And even if the legislation is struck down as being unconstitutional, then we need to discuss the creation of an independent commission to decide upon judicial wages, similar to those set up in Canada and England. It is our Constitution, our democracy; it is up to us whether we nurture it, or allow it to be smothered.

(my emphasis)


If anyone can come up with a rational and well thought out rebuttal to Dr. King's opinion piece in the Irish Times yesterday, I'd love to hear it and counterpoint.
But, if the argument is (a rather nonsensical one) of "ah the legal profession is corrupt, therefore we need to pay them less"; I can direct you to After Hours.

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It may be laughable to you with no understanding of the workings of our country and other democratic countries, but this poses a real problem.
You seem to be very confused between the legal profession and the judiciary as well. Your own self-serving interest has obviously blinded you to the actual facts of the situation, rather than your perceived "preservation of interests".

Quite simply, the costs of giving the legislative branch of government powers which are outside the scope of the intended powers of that branch is unconstitutional - amending the constitution to remove this unconstitutionality puts all power in the Oireachtas.

Despite being a moderator for legal discussion, you seem not to even understand the purposes of Constitutional referendums - in fact I am not even sure of your grasp of the english language !

FreudianSlippers

anymore wrote: »

Despite being a moderator for legal discussion, you seem not to even understand the purposes of Constitutional referendums - in fact I am not even sure of your grasp of the english language !

Nice one. I was on my phone, but as I'm on a computer again, I can do slightly better.
I'm quite willing to wager my grasp of the English language as well as the Constitution dwarfs yours.

The legislative exercising powers ultra vires those intended for them to have and exercise is a costly mistake and flies in the face of our constitution and democracy. Amending the constitution via referendum would make these powers constitutional, yes; but does not mean that they are appropriate when considering the overall nature of the document and its purpose. I propose that the nature of these amendments themselves is unconstitutional.

Now, do you have anything useful to add, or are you lacking intelligent commentary so badly that you have to resort to pettiness?

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The problem is, and I don't know how to put it more clearly than this, not in relation to Judge's pay being linked by some independent method to a general rise and fall in Public Sector wages.

Nobody is saying that Judges shouldn't be exposed to pension levy or reduction in pay in line with other PS reductions.

The problem here is twofold:
1) there already exists in common law a method of doing what this bill proposes; that renders this bill moot. So why are they doing it? Well that leads to...
2) the proposed amendment is vague enough that it represents excessive power being vested in the Oireachtas. This is a slippery slope whereby the Oireachtas leeches more and more powers from other branches of government (see 30th Amendment Bill 2011) whereby the members of the Oireachtas are now their OWN judiciary and have effectively ended the fundamental cornerstone of this country - the separation of powers.

So presumably when the issue of cutting Judges pay first arose both the leagl profession the the judiciary made submissions to the Government pointing out Judges pay might be fully and effectively cut. is that correct ?

FreudianSlippers

anymore wrote: »

So presumably when the issue of cutting Judges pay first arose both the leagl profession the the judiciary made submissions to the Government pointing out Judges pay might be fully and effectively cut. is that correct ?

It has nothing to do with "the legal profession"; they are not a part of the Judiciary and 99% of them will never be a part of the Judiciary.

Secondly, as pointed out earlier in this thread and in another, the Chief Justice did recommend that an independent body be established outside of the legislative branch to deal with the issue. He further urged judges to take the voluntary pay cut. Provision is already in place via common law to make these "cuts".
It was the government that made that cut voluntary, not the judiciary (separation of powers disallows them from making that decision).

This proposed amendment is pointless, moot and over-reaching. It's a governmental grab of power that they should not have.

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It has nothing to do with "the legal profession"; they are not a part of the Judiciary and 99% of them will never be a part of the Judiciary.

Secondly, as pointed out earlier in this thread and in another, the Chief Justice did recommend that an independent body be established outside of the legislative branch to deal with the issue. He further urged judges to take the voluntary pay cut. Provision is already in place via common law to make these "cuts".
It was the government that made that cut voluntary, not the judiciary (separation of powers disallows them from making that decision).

This proposed amendment is pointless, moot and over-reaching. It's a governmental grab of power that they should not have.

Very cute !
Of course 100% of the judiciary are or have been members of the legal profession ! Or do judges metamorphose into non-legal beings after being appointed judges ?
Tell me what percentages of judicial appointments are made after political canvassing ? And what percentages of people appointed to the judiciary have been members of political parties . I only ask these questions to establish how real the actual separation between the different branches of the State really is !

Now as regards the appointment of an independent commission, was this suggestion made also prior to the juducuary accepting the many extravagant benchmarking pay awards ?
And how many members of the legal profession were to be appointed to this commission ? Was it to be truly independent and have.........none ?

Also are you familiar with the tv programme ' Yes Minister' ? The appointment of commissions was a favourite tactic in that programme.

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nice one. I was on my phone, but as I'm on a computer again, I can do slightly better.
I'm quite willing to wager my grasp of the English language as well as the Constitution dwarfs yours.

The legislative exercising powers ultra vires those intended for them to have and exercise is a costly mistake and flies in the face of our constitution and democracy. Amending the constitution via referendum would make these powers constitutional, yes; but does not mean that they are appropriate when considering the overall nature of the document and its purpose. I propose that the nature of these amendments themselves is unconstitutional.

Now, do you have anything useful to add, or are you lacking intelligent commentary so badly that you have to resort to pettiness?

Let the electorate decide what is and is not appropriate for our democracy - that it does not suit the judiciary is neither here nor there. They, or those members of it who are agreived have the option of removing themselves from thier positions.

FreudianSlippers

anymore wrote: »

Very cute !
Of course 100% of the judiciary are or have been members of the legal profession ! Or do judges metamorphose into non-legal beings after being appointed judges ?

Ah, syllogism? All judges were lawyers but not all lawyers are judges.

Tell me what percentages of judicial appointments are made after political canvassing ? And what percentages of people appointed to the judiciary have been members of political parties . I only ask these questions to establish how real the actual separation between the different branches of the State really is !

I don't actually think you fully understand the separation of powers. It has nothing to do with judicial appointment - it's about the question of what powers are ultra vires each branch of government.

Besides, typically in a conversation/argument if you wish to make a point relying on facts, the onus is on that person making the point to produce the facts to back their argument.

Now as regards the appointment of an independent commission, was this suggestion made also prior to the juducuary accepting the many extravagant benchmarking pay awards ?
And how many members of the legal profession were to be appointed to this commission ? Was it to be truly independent and have.........none ?

Also are you familiar with the tv programme ' Yes Minister' ? The appointment of commissions was a favourite tactic in that programme.

Again, your point, you provide the facts. Otherwise it's just drivel.
As to how many members of the legal profession were to be appointed to the commission; we don't know. There is no commission. Likely very few when considering the results of the Moriarty Tribunal.

FreudianSlippers

anymore wrote: »

Let the electorate decide what is and is not appropriate for our democracy - that it does not suit the judiciary is neither here nor there. They, or those members of it who are agreived have the option of removing themselves from thier positions.

It's clear from your posts on the subject that many of the electorate have no idea what is best constitutionally for this country - then when an attempt is made to explain logically why these changes are the wrong way of going about this process they cover their eyes and ears, scream "LALALALALALA" and try to sidetrack the discussion.

This amendment is pointless. There is no need to alter the constitution to put excessive power in the government (which, btw... when did they become the most trustworthy people to deal with these matters?) when provision exists already to adjust Judges' pay.