It seems that judges like all people mess up occasionally.
Yesterday we heard the news that two people had their convictions quashed because the judge expressed a view that the scales of justice might be tilted in favour of criminals rather than victims.
In April the media was full of news relating to Justice Adrian Hardiman critisizm of Justice Flood for hiding evidence, editing witness statements and denying costs to witnesses.
If the incident is not something worthy of impeachment by the dail what quality control is there on judges performance?
There seem to be a lot of mistakes happening... normal people get fired for screwing up!
So witholding material is a reason to allow an appeal?
They do, hence an appeals process and Innocence Project(s).
They absolutely, completely and utterly are. There's a famous Blackstone quote and although in spirit it's a protection of the innocence it does allow 'guilty' men to walk free. There's a great quote from somewhere with much less of a legal pedigree, that to bring the innocent to trial would be unfair, therefore, logically, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Is the latter the society you want to live in?
Which incident are you now talking about? Him expressing an extra-judicial opinion? Seems pretty reasonable and what one might expect in an independent judiciary.
No they don't. They get retrained, errors are pointed out to them and mistakes rectified. To do it any other way would be complete absurd. Every time a doctor made a mistake we'd have new doctors more likely to make mistakes. If you believe in luck we'd simply have a society of the lucky... not a bad thing, but everyones luck runs out.