Who has the power to fire a judge?

mikemac

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55291110#post55291110

Is there some sort of performance review for judges?

Who can fire them if they don't do their job properly?

The Minister for Justice as far as I know.

Inspired by post 30 and 31 I'd like to know can a judge be fired

In my limited knowledge we have seperation of powers so it can't be done.
If we did then Bertie could sack everyone in the Mahon tribunal and make that problem go away

But if that's the case what happens if a judge gets old and senile and lashes out crazy judgements that constantly get appealed. Can the President of his court force them to retire?

Maximilian

Its in the Constitution - Article 35.4

4. 1° A judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann calling for his removal.

2° The Taoiseach shall duly notify the President of any such resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann, and shall send him a copy of every such resolution certified by the Chairman of the House of the Oireachtas by which it shall have been passed.

3° Upon receipt of such notification and of copies of such resolutions, the President shall forthwith, by an order under his hand and Seal, remove from office the judge to whom they relate.

gurramok

I had valid questions

From reading the above, does it include Circuit Court judges who are mostly involved in crazy sentencing?
It seems impossible to remove one unless the Dail passes those resolutions and the President agrees.

It doesn't answer if they even have performance reviews, are they answerable to anyone or any body if they fail to carry out their duty properly or is it all down to the Dail as above?

NoQuarter

the way i see it is that they arent answerable to anybody because it is assumed that the way the carry out their duty is the proper way.

the judges have the whole facts of the case when handing out sentances while the lynch mob on boards just have the tabloid headlines and thats why they think some judgments are crazy!

Our man in Havana

gurramok wrote: »

I had valid questions

From reading the above, does it include Circuit Court judges who are mostly involved in crazy sentencing?
It seems impossible to remove one unless the Dail passes those resolutions and the President agrees.

It doesn't answer if they even have performance reviews, are they answerable to anyone or any body if they fail to carry out their duty properly or is it all down to the Dail as above?

If you remember the Dáil tried to get rid of a certain Circuit Court judge and see how far they got. He took early retirement and sloped off into the night with his pension intact. The Dáil was impotent to stop him.

williamb

Bond-007 wrote: »

If you remember the Dáil tried to get rid of a certain Circuit Court judge and see how far they got. He took early retirement and sloped off into the night with his pension intact. The Dáil was impotent to stop him.

That's not quite accurate, surely ? He did delay proceedings via a Supreme Court case, etc., but the proposed mechanism for removing him was found constitutionally acceptable.

And the Dáil did have a nuclear option :- the security of tenure of Circuit Court judges was granted by legislation, not the Constitution (Courts of Justice Act 1924, Google informs me).

What the Dáil grants, the Dáil can take away :- it would have been possible to pass legislation rescinding the 1924 Act and giving (say) the Minister for Justice power to dismiss Circuit Court judges. I'm not saying this would have been a good idea, but it's hardly impotency.

Our man in Havana

Why did they not go nuclear instead of the way they went?

Victor

gurramok wrote: »

It seems impossible to remove one unless the Dail passes those resolutions and the President agrees.

The president doesn't need to agree. Re-read the text quoted.

It doesn't answer if they even have performance reviews, are they answerable to anyone or any body if they fail to carry out their duty properly or is it all down to the Dail as above?

There are proposals for some sort of peer review scheme for judges.

williamb wrote: »

And the Dáil did have a nuclear option :- the security of tenure of Circuit Court judges was granted by legislation, not the Constitution (Courts of Justice Act 1924, Google informs me).

But doesn't eh 1937 constitution supercede the 1924 act?

Tom Young

williamb wrote: »

That's not quite accurate, surely ? He did delay proceedings via a Supreme Court case, etc., but the proposed mechanism for removing him was found constitutionally acceptable.

And the Dáil did have a nuclear option :- the security of tenure of Circuit Court judges was granted by legislation, not the Constitution (Courts of Justice Act 1924, Google informs me).

What the Dáil grants, the Dáil can take away :- it would have been possible to pass legislation rescinding the 1924 Act and giving (say) the Minister for Justice power to dismiss Circuit Court judges. I'm not saying this would have been a good idea, but it's hardly impotency.

1924? I'd agree with Victor until such time as the act is struck down as being unconstitutional. (Two chances!)

williamb

Victor wrote: »

The president doesn't need to agree. Re-read the text quoted.
There are proposals for some sort of peer review scheme for judges.

But doesn't eh 1937 constitution supercede the 1924 act?

1937 Constitution, Article 35.4.1
4. 1° A judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann calling for his removal.[

There is no other clause relating to judicial tenure, and this explicitly applies only to High and Supreme Court judges. No protection of tenure is given to Circuit Court judges by the 1937 Constitution. The nuclear option was briefly mentioned in the Irish Times during the Curtin case.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

But doesn't eh 1937 constitution supercede the 1924 act?

No, Art 50 of Bunreacht na hEireann states:
"Subject to this Constitution and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent therewith, the laws in force in Saorstát Éireann immediately prior to the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution shall continue to be of full force and effect until the same or any of them shall have been repealed or amended by enactment of the Oireachtas."

So it remains in force unless repealed or amended by the Oireachtas, or alternatively if it is found inconsistent with the constitution it will be found to have been struck down on the date of passing of Bunreacht na hEireann (see CC v Ireland).

I don't see anything inconsistent about a circuit court or district judge not having the same security of tenure as the constitutionally protected offices of High Court and Supreme Court judges. As long as the High Court retains original jurisdiction in all matters, I don't think there is anything which requires that CC and HC judges have the same tenure.

I would tend to agree with williamb on that point, that while it is important that judges cannot be easily removed from office by a political agent, there is nothing unconsitutional about reducing their tenure.

To answer the question, a lot of the time if a judge's ability is under question, they are often assigned to short lists or areas in which they can do no real harm.

dermot_sheehan

Courts (Constitution and Establishment) Act 1961 and Courts (supplemental provisions act) 1961 re-establish the courts system (including the high and supreme court), 14 years after the constitution was enacted.

Victor

1937+14=1951

johnnyskeleton

gabhain7 wrote: »

Courts (Constitution and Establishment) Act 1961 and Courts (supplemental provisions act) 1961 re-establish the courts system (including the high and supreme court), 14 years after the constitution was enacted.

How does that impact on the power to remove a judge?