Referendum on judges' pay

oscarBravo

http://www.thejournal.ie/kenny-plans-referendum-to-allow-cuts-to-judges-salaries-127790-Apr2011/

I'm concerned about this. Setting aside for the moment all the populist cant about "sharing the pain" and "detached from reality", is anyone pausing long enough to think about why there's a constitutional bar on the Oireachtas reducing judicial remuneration? We have a serious lack of separation of powers between legislature and executive as it is; do we really want to create a situation where the executive can hold the judiciary to ransom?

If we're going to amend the constitution to allow judges' remuneration to be reduced, we need to be very, very careful about who gets to control that remuneration and how.

Lockstep

Yeah, I agree.

There's the usual hubub about judges being sheltered but allowing the legislature to determine judges pay makes the separation of powers even weaker.

The control should be left to the council of state on the advice of the elected government.

Laminations

Attacking judges pay in isolation would be worrying. Making them adhere to measures that the rest of us are having to deal with is fairness. Allowing the judges to escape cuts in pay and pensions would be treating them differently and just as bad as singling them out for cuts. Why should they be singled out for no cuts?

petroltimer

this is a red herring, populist rubbish by a new government which seems to be living in the past instead of getting on with making real decisions.

Fact for you is Judges are nominated from Senior Council Barristers and they take a massive paycut to do this job, i work in this area and have heard that Senior Council Barristers make as much in a month as a judges pay in a year. So real thing would be for the government to get after reducing the fees paid, cut out the millionaire making tribunals.

Laminations

petroltimer wrote: »

this is a red herring, populist rubbish by a new government which seems to be living in the past instead of getting on with making real decisions.

Fact for you is Judges are nominated from Senior Council Barristers and they take a massive paycut to do this job, i work in this area and have heard that Senior Council Barristers make as much in a month as a judges pay in a year. So real thing would be for the government to get after reducing the fees paid, cut out the millionaire making tribunals.

With the gov intending to hold a referendum to give inquisitory powers to Dail committees I'd have thought they were moving toward scrapping tribunals, but I agree, professional fees across the board are exorbitant

beeftotheheels

petroltimer wrote: »

this is a red herring, populist rubbish by a new government which seems to be living in the past instead of getting on with making real decisions.

Fact for you is Judges are nominated from Senior Council Barristers and they take a massive paycut to do this job, i work in this area and have heard that Senior Council Barristers make as much in a month as a judges pay in a year. So real thing would be for the government to get after reducing the fees paid, cut out the millionaire making tribunals.

The UK example, the House of Lords (now Supreme Court). The two intellectual heavy weights there for much of the 90s and 00s were Robert Goff and Lenny Hoffman.

Goff, an Oxford academic who became a judge never earned serious money (compared to the next gentleman).

Lenny, the first member of the £1m a year club, the first UK based barrister to make £1m a year. Entered the judiciary in his late 50s, by which point one assumes he had a tidy nest egg stored away.

Would cutting judges pay have stopped either of these two great men entering the judiciary? I doubt it. They did so out of a sense of duty and, in Goff's case, the chance to fix the law rather than writing from the sidelines about how the law was broken.

I think it is demeaning to the office to suggest that judges should be treated differently to everyone else.

The reason for the constitutional ban harks back to ye olden days to avoid the judiciary being bribed. If the office means anything nowadays, the holder ought to be above being bribed.

It does not serve the interests of justice to have SCs choosing to enter the judiciary for the pension, it serves the interests of justice for great men to chose to put themselves forward as judges because they are prepared to, or want to, make a difference.

I see no reason for treating them differently to anyone else, I don't see the constitutional ban on reducing their pay as being in any way necessary for the proper separation of powers.

oscarBravo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The reason for the constitutional ban harks back to ye olden days to avoid the judiciary being bribed.

No, the reason for the constitutional ban is to prevent the legislature/executive (basically the same thing in this country) from using judges' pay as a means to exert influence over the judiciary. Such influence must be avoided, if we're to have any semblance of separation of powers left.

...I don't see the constitutional ban on reducing their pay as being in any way necessary for the proper separation of powers.

You think we can have effective separation of powers if the executive is in a position to drastically cut judges' pay?

I suppose you're right, if we use the separation of powers between executive and legislature as a benchmark.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'm not a fan of this countries current judiciary (Or our legal system as a whole) but even leaving that aside, I strongly believe judges should take pay cuts. Its illogical that many public servants on much lower pay levels are threatening strike action to avoid pay cuts, while these cnuts can just refuse point blank to accept them.

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, the reason for the constitutional ban is to prevent the legislature/executive (basically the same thing in this country) from using judges' pay as a means to exert influence over the judiciary. Such influence must be avoided, if we're to have any semblance of separation of powers left. You think we can have effective separation of powers if the executive is in a position to drastically cut judges' pay?

I suppose you're right, if we use the separation of powers between executive and legislature as a benchmark.

I suspect that you think a lot less of the fundamental importance of the doctrine of the separation of powers than I do. If a judge could be swayed by the government threatening to cut his salary, then he is not fit to be a judge.

By assuming judicial office he undertakes the obligation to apply the law, fairly and without prejudice.

Per my above UK example there are two types of judges we should want. Those who have made their money at the bar, and those for whom money is not the object.

A judicial appointment is one of the greatest honors which can be conferred on an individual, and it carries with it responsibility.

To suggest it is about money, demeans the fundamental doctrines of the separation of powers and the rule of law.

Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, do not have any such ban and yet their superior courts frequently rule against the government.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/28.html

Lord Hope's speech was particularly good, dealing with the issue of the right of the accused to know the accusation.

"If the rule of law is to mean anything, it is in cases such as these that the court must stand by principle."

oscarBravo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I suspect that you think a lot less of the fundamental importance of the doctrine of the separation of powers than I do.

As best I can parse that sentence, you're saying I don't think separation of powers is important, which runs contrary to my entire argument.

If a judge could be swayed by the government threatening to cut his salary, then he is not fit to be a judge.

If a TD could be swayed by the government threatening to expel him from the party, then he's not fit to be a TD. And yet...

I'd rather not base SoP on wishful thinking, but on actual practical steps taken to enforce it.

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

As best I can parse that sentence, you're saying I don't think separation of powers is important, which runs contrary to my entire argument.

I did not say that. I simply said that I believe you think less of it than I do. I did not dispute that you afforded it importance.

Let me explain my position. I do not believe in god, but I do believe in the law. Thus for me, the doctrines of the rule of law and separation of powers are not mere words or titles. They are on a par with people of religion believing in higher beings.

They should not rest on earthly concerns like money. I'm not suggesting that we should pay judges nothing, but I don't see protecting judges salaries as being necessary for the separation of powers. Judges have a moral and legal obligation to apply the law. If they could be swayed by a threat to their salaries then they, and not the government, would be in breach of the separation of powers. Judges should, per my quote from Lord Hope, be prepared to stand on principle to protect the rule of law. If they do not do so then their actions are not legal.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd rather not base SoP on wishful thinking, but on actual practical steps taken to enforce it.

To which my point is that if the separation of powers means so little that we have to take such steps to protect it, it is not worth protecting. I believe it is worth protecting, but that it self protects in this regard.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If a TD could be swayed by the government threatening to expel him from the party, then he's not fit to be a TD. And yet...

There is no requirement that a TD be versed in jurisprudence, public or administrative law. There is such a requirement of judges.

I'm not saying that no steps are required to protect the separation of powers, the executive and the legislature are not required to understand it. I am saying that there is no need to protect the separation of powers from the judiciary who by definition should understand it.

oscarBravo

I find your argument unconvincing, frankly. My point is that the concept of separation of powers requires that one branch of government be prevented from exercising leverage over another. Yours seems to be that it's OK for such leverage to exist, because judges can be trusted to Do The Right Thing even in the face of undue influence.

I have a great deal of respect for most of our judiciary, but designing a system of checks and balances around the assumption that an entire branch of government ought to consist of people who are so trustworthy as not to need checking or balancing doesn't strike me as a good idea.

Note that I'm not arguing that judges' pay should never be reduced; simply that it's not a good idea to hand one branch of government a stick to beat another with, no matter how stoically you insist the latter branch would accept its punishment.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I can't find a link for those at the moment but I saw an article in the Independent earlier showing the ridiculous amounts of money given in expenses to judges for the purchase of wigs and gowns. Why are these necessary? Why can't a judge preside over a trial in a regular suit?

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

I find your argument unconvincing, frankly. My point is that the concept of separation of powers requires that one branch of government be prevented from exercising leverage over another. Yours seems to be that it's OK for such leverage to exist, because judges can be trusted to Do The Right Thing even in the face of undue influence.

That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that the rule of law, of which the doctrine of the separation of powers is a fundamental part, requires that the judiciary be impartial. To suggest that this is not so, to suggest that legislation is required through the constitution or otherwise, undermines the very foundation of the legal system. I am not saying that I trust the judges to do the right thing, I am saying that to do the wrong thing renders them unfit to be judges. Their office requires them to uphold the rule of law. It is not optional.

All the while leaving us with a daft provision in the constitution which can never be relied on in a court of law because the rules of natural justice would prohibit anyone from hearing the case. Nemo judex in sua causa. The legal equivalent of a tree falling in a forest when no one is in earshot.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a great deal of respect for most of our judiciary, but designing a system of checks and balances around the assumption that an entire branch of government ought to consist of people who are so trustworthy as not to need checking or balancing doesn't strike me as a good idea.

How is it a check or a balance? It is a) unnecessary because of the rule of law, and b) its a white elephant since no one could ever enforce it.

I'm not against checks and balances, I am against unnecessary, and unenforceable interference with the legal system, and I am against undermining the rule of law.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Note that I'm not arguing that judges' pay should never be reduced; simply that it's not a good idea to hand one branch of government a stick to beat another with, no matter how stoically you insist the latter branch would accept its punishment.

It is not a choice about accepting punishment, it is a requirement of the office. It's like passing a law saying that teachers have to teach. It is inherent in the job description.

Dionysus

Laminations wrote: »

Attacking judges pay in isolation would be worrying. Making them adhere to measures that the rest of us are having to deal with is fairness. Allowing the judges to escape cuts in pay and pensions would be treating them differently and just as bad as singling them out for cuts. Why should they be singled out for no cuts?

This. Judges have brought this entirely upon themselves. It is absolutely unethical that everybody else in the public service - most of whom are paid far less - have been forced to pay these levies but judges have hidden behind a constitutional protection which was designed to prevent them being singled out for a wage reduction. By no standard have judges been singled out; by every standard they have misused a constitutional provision in order to ensure they would pay less tax than every other public servant.


In short, bring on this referendum without delay. This action by the paid judges of this republic is wholly indefensible, in addition to being repellent in its dishonesty. They are in no position to judge the rest of society about honesty and decent behaviour as long as their ignoble attitude to paying their fair share of tax persists.

beeftotheheels

Dionysus wrote: »

This. Judges have brought this entirely upon themselves. It is absolutely unethical that everybody else in the public service - most of whom are paid far less - have been forced to pay these levies but judges have hidden behind a constitutional protection which was designed to prevent them being singled out for a wage reduction. By no standard have judges been singled out; by every standard they have misused a constitutional provision in order to ensure they would pay less tax than every other public servant.


In short, bring on this referendum without delay. This action by the paid judges of this republic is wholly indefensible, in addition to being repellent in its dishonesty. They are in no position to judge the rest of society about honesty and decent behaviour as long as their ignoble attitude to paying their fair share of tax persists.

And it causes outrage, like this, which undermines the perception of the judiciary, which in turn undermines the rule of law. Abolish it in the name of the law!

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/kenny-plans-referendum-to-allow-cuts-to-judges-salaries-127790-Apr2011/

I'm concerned about this. Setting aside for the moment all the populist cant about "sharing the pain" and "detached from reality", is anyone pausing long enough to think about why there's a constitutional bar on the Oireachtas reducing judicial remuneration? We have a serious lack of separation of powers between legislature and executive as it is; do we really want to create a situation where the executive can hold the judiciary to ransom?

If we're going to amend the constitution to allow judges' remuneration to be reduced, we need to be very, very careful about who gets to control that remuneration and how.

Would you object to a smaller change that allowed public sector wide pay changes to apply to the judiciary?

voter1983

I think this is finally adressing the issue of judges pay. To be fair some of the judges have already taken voluntary pay cuts. This was quite commendable but the failure of some of their colleagues to do likewise cast a cloud over the whole issue. The country as a whole is going through changes. Pay is being reduced for all and judges should be treated likewise.

The argument that giving the government the ability to reduce judges pay is a breach of the separation of the executive and legislative branches is null in my opinion as the government can authorise wage increases for judges. Should the case arise where the government were to (unlawfully) attempt to influence judges then surely the carrot approach of pay rises for any preferred outcome would also be achieved by the stick approach of threatening to reduce pay.

Finally it is the state who pay the judges and in time of recession all avenues for cutbacks must be examined. If the state cant afford to pay the high levels of wages then it is a prudent economic reason for reducing wages. The state can no longer afford upwards only wage agreements.

Inverse to the power of one!

If it takes a constitutional referendum to cut the Judges pay, what did it take to increase it to its current level?

Quite the rubber stamp culture we got if this decision came down to a senior civil servant!

Any save the referendum costs for a decent referendum.......say one that reforms the entire legal system as recommended in the IMF MOU.

Our legal system is strangling our entire society, it's too expensive for some, too permissive for others, too easy to sidestep for those committing crime so often as to know all the loops, too obtuse to prosecute the corrupt, too easy to liable and all the while only enriching those who practice it.......judges are but a microcosm within a macro clusterfu*ck of epic proportions to the tune of billions.

The principles of justice can be enshrined and refreshed anew within a new modern more knowledgeable system that actually serves every citizen as opposed those who can afford it.

Eliot Rosewater

voter1983 wrote: »

I think this is finally adressing the issue of judges pay. To be fair some of the judges have already taken voluntary pay cuts. This was quite commendable but the failure of some of their colleagues to do likewise cast a cloud over the whole issue.

According to the article in The Journal 125 of the country’s 147 judges have taken voluntary pay cuts. In fairness to them, that is more than just "some".

voter1983 wrote: »

The argument that giving the government the ability to reduce judges pay is a breach of the separation of the executive and legislative branches is null in my opinion as the government can authorise wage increases for judges. Should the case arise where the government were to (unlawfully) attempt to influence judges then surely the carrot approach of pay rises for any preferred outcome would also be achieved by the stick approach of threatening to reduce pay.

That's a fair point, but the carrot approach is not really effective because it's not a punishment. I think the constitutional article is designed so as to prevent the other branches of government punishing the judiciary for consistently making rulings the former two disagree with. Carrots can't be used to punish.

voter1983 wrote: »

Finally it is the state who pay the judges and in time of recession all avenues for cutbacks must be examined. If the state cant afford to pay the high levels of wages then it is a prudent economic reason for reducing wages. The state can no longer afford upwards only wage agreements.

That's a fair point too, but it's worth having a bit of context. I estimate the wages of the judiciary are about €200,000 times 147 judges, so about €30 million in total. Take out the money immediately given back in tax, and we're at least under €20 million. A 10% pay cut will save the state €2 million - less than 0.01% of the government's budget for this year.

That's not to say that a million here and there doesn't help. But, in the grander scheme of things, it's minuscule, and given what could lost - a degree of the separation of power between two branches of government - I do not consider it worth it.


By the way, for all, the relevant part of the constitution is Article 35, section 5.

oscarBravo

nesf wrote: »

Would you object to a smaller change that allowed public sector wide pay changes to apply to the judiciary?

Insofar as such changes can exist, no problem. Again, I don't have an issue with the possibility of judges' pay being reduced, as long as it can't be reduced on a whim by either of the other branches of government. Or, more accurately, the other branch of government.

beeftotheheels

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

By the way, for all, the relevant part of the constitution is Article 35, section 5.

Whereas Article 35(2) provides that "All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law."

So, Article 35(5) is superfluous in terms of protecting the separation of powers, Art 35(2) already has that covered by enshrining the rule of law.

We can get no clarity on the meaning of Art 35(5), and whether it restricts new taxes and levies being applied to judicial salaries, because no court could hear the case.

And now, the provision is being used to question the standing of the judiciary.

Get rid of it. Other functioning democracies do not need it, the UK for example (not least because they have no written constitution) does not have this rule.

I personally think that we should acknowledge that the world has moved on since Alexander Hamilton said...

"Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support ... In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will. And we can never hope to see realized in practice the complete separation of the judicial from the legislative power, in any system which leaves the former dependent for pecuniary resources on the occasional grants of the latter."

We, the electorate, would not countenance Fine Gael slashing the salary of a particular judge because they didn't like what he said. If judges take a 10% pay cut is this likely to put them on the breadline and sway their opinion?

Hamilton was right, at his time. But the man died in a duel. His time is not our time. The justification for the rule is gone, was possibly gone by the time we introduced it in 1937 (only 20 years since war of independence so arguable that it was necessary at the time).

ardmacha

They should simply cut the salaries and apply the pension levy to them. Let some of the beaks take a case if they wish. The application of general cuts is not designed to reduce the influence of the judiciary. Indeed the influence of the judiciary is being reduced by the present situation.

And whatever the amount of the cut, it is worth it, as it establishes that everyone is equal in this Republic.

beeftotheheels

ardmacha wrote: »

Let some of the beaks take a case if they wish.

They can't. No Irish judge could hear the case, no non Irish judge could interpret the Irish Constitution. Catch 22 and one of the reasons we don't actually know what the parameters of the provision are. It can be subject to scholarly debate, but not to judicial scrutiny.

In my opinion the judiciary should be calling for the abolition of the provision in order to protect the independence of the judiciary, and in order to remind the electorate that they are public servants, subject to the same rights and obligations as the rest of us. This underpins the legitimacy of the legal system, this underpins the rule of law.

oscarBravo

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Hamilton was right, at his time. But the man died in a duel.

Non sequitur.

His time is not our time. The justification for the rule is gone...

Why?

beeftotheheels

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

Seriously? Guaranteeing a man a living wage a couple of hundred years ago meant something. People died of starvation. Can you suggest for one moment that "a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will" these days?

Say we have a judge, Mr X, who rules that the EU/ IMF deal is illegal. The Government unilaterally decide to halve his salary.

a) His brethren in the Supreme Court will hear the case, and can consider whether such governmental action is legal both under Art 35(2), human rights law, employment law, and the rules of natural justice all of which have developed since the US constitution introduced the bar, not to mention issues associated with the ECHR.
b) We the people could and should be outraged
c) If he understands the rule of law, he could resign and resume practice as a barrister, while explaining to us why he had to resign and why the government's actions were wrong, and instigating litigation against the State.

There are checks and balances. In a world where most members of the judiciary take a pay cut to assume that office, they have the option of walking away if abused, they have the option of going on television and explaining to the masses what went wrong, they have the option of relying on many other enforceable laws to protect their rights.

Again, Alexander Hamilton's time is not our time. The world has moved on in the last 200 years.

The rule of law is always fragile in a new democracy whether that be the US in the late 1700s, or Ireland in the 1920s. The whole social contract on which the legitimacy of law rests is not established, the trust required to establish it is not there. So, to protect the concept, we have have laws like Art 35(5).

But then we grow up. Into a real democracy. We have the rule of law. It needs no further protection. Get rid of Art 35(5)

beeftotheheels

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Hamilton was right, at his time. But the man died in a duel.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Non sequitur.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But the man died in a duel. His time is not our time.

Sequitur!


ps I acknowledge that this is petty, but it is a a petty response to a petty post! OP tried to take my comment out of context, I put it back in context.

Fulton Crown

Deleted User wrote: »

The control should be left to the council of state on the advice of the elected government.

Not possible at the mo Pal....ref the constitution ..

Eliot Rosewater

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Whereas Article 35(2) provides that "All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law."

So, Article 35(5) is superfluous in terms of protecting the separation of powers, Art 35(2) already has that covered by enshrining the rule of law.

No offence, but I find that attitude naive. An elected government can always make an excuse. Suppose the ULA come into power and start taking peoples' private property, and a case is taken to the courts against it. (The constitution guarantees private property.) The judges rule against the government. The government then makes a statement saying judges have been insulated from pay cuts for too long (they have been) and are paid too much anyway (they're paid well), and start cutting.

They would obviously be doing it to influence the courts but they could argue that they had alternative motives. In this case Article 35 (2) is not enough.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Get rid of it. Other functioning democracies do not need it, the UK for example (not least because they have no written constitution) does not have this rule.

What exactly do you mean be "do not need it"?

beeftotheheels wrote: »

We, the electorate, would not countenance Fine Gael slashing the salary of a particular judge because they didn't like what he said.

Really? If a judge affirmed the right of women to wear burkas in public in Ireland, and the government put them under pressure, would the electorate countenance it? There's a good chance they would - many dislike the burka.

Basically what you've done is made the justice system a political process - which is precisely what it's not supposed to be.

beeftotheheels

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

No offence, but I find that attitude naive. An elected government can always make an excuse. Suppose the ULA come into power and start taking peoples' private property, and a case is taken to the courts against it. (The constitution guarantees private property.) The judges rule against the government. The government then makes a statement saying judges have been insulated from pay cuts for too long (they have been) and are paid too much anyway (they're paid well), and start cutting.

They would obviously be doing it to influence the courts but they could argue that they had alternative motives. In this case Article 35 (2) is not enough.

And if the army led a coup tomorrow, that could breach the provisions on treason in Art 39 and the judges might rule against them..... Oh please! If you need to find such extreme examples to justify the retention of the rule don't you think that might suggest that the rule is obsolete? By that stage in the game we would have much bigger issues than the separation of powers!

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What exactly do you mean be "do not need it"?

The UK judiciary are widely regarded as one of the most independent in the world (sheer number of contracts which give England and Wales jurisdiction), yet the separation of powers is at best fuzzy in the UK, clarified a little by the introduction of the Supreme Court - Dicey referred to it as "a weak separation of powers".

So how can they have such a judiciary without a strict separation of powers (incidentally given our executive is elected by our legislature ours ain't absolute either)?

Because their judges hold the rule of law supreme. They have no written constitution thus they cannot have an equivalent of Art 35(5).

In a previous post I referenced the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF. The case involved a challenge to UK legislation effectively allowing the government put terrorism suspects under house arrest without telling them why (I would think on a par with your Burqa analogy in terms of popular support). Usually, five law lords heard a case, in exceptional circumstances 7 sat, replicating what had happened a mere handful of times in the history of that judicial committee 9 Law Lords came out to strike down the legislation because it contravened the rule of law and the rules of natural justice.

They had no such protection of their wages, they handed down a decision which vexed both the government and the public, because it was right.

I am sick to death of Irish people having such limited expectations when it comes to duty. We should be able to expect more of our judiciary, we should be able to expect them to uphold the rule of law. We should be able to expect our executive/ legislature not to abuse their power over the judiciary, and if they do not do so we should be able to see such abuse struck down under existing provisions.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Basically what you've done is made the justice system a political process - which is precisely what it's not supposed to be.

No, basically I have argued for the abolition of an obsolete provision in the constitution which undermines the fundamental rule of law while purporting to support the separation of powers (which is in and of itself meaningless without the rule of law).

People need to believe in the independence of the judiciary, and having a provision which appears to render them above the law, undermines the law.

Having them subject to the same laws as the rest of us supports the rule of law.

To put it another way, what value can we place on a judiciary, who may be exempt from political interference with their salaries, but who are themselves not subject to the same laws which apply to the rest of us? How can it benefit the concept of justice to have a judiciary who can be painted as more interested in the salary than the office?

Lex Rex

aidan24326

petroltimer wrote: »

So real thing would be for the government to get after reducing the fees paid, cut out the millionaire making tribunals.

That's a much more important issue really than the populist issue of cutting judges pay. Legal fees in this country are beyond outrageous. The Four Courts could be re-named The Fat Cat Members Club.

Tackle the culture of exorbitant professional fees first and foremost, as quite often the huge fees charged bear little relation to the importance of the actual work being done.

And do we really need the whole robes and wigs thing at this stage? And the ridiculously obscurantist language? The former seems to me to just bestow an air of (undeserved) mystique about the whole thing, while the latter simply retains the cosy status quo by tieing the whole documentation process up in a tangled web of unnecessary complcations that merely help to enrich those who devise them but certainly don't provide anything like a transparent or value-for-money service.

johnnyskeleton

What ever happened to all the other constitutional referenda that were promised? Childrens' rights, abolition of the seanad, etc. Or on the other hand, Labour's whacky proposal that we get 300 people together to create a new constitution and see if it works.

If they are dealing with constitutional issues along the level of judge's pay (the cost of holding the referendum will probably outweight the savings over the next few years) why not also throw in abortion, removing the special place of the catholic church, permitting family rights outside of marriage, children's rights, all the stuff people want to voice their opinion on.

aidan24326 wrote: »

That's a much more important issue really than the populist issue of cutting judges pay. Legal fees in this country are beyond outrageous. The Four Courts could be re-named The Fat Cat Members Club.

Tackle the culture of exorbitant professional fees first and foremost, as quite often the huge fees charged bear little relation to the importance of the actual work being done.

Can you give some examples? What would you think would be a fair fee for various amounts of work done? A criminal trial? A long running constitutional case? Advices that require a considerable amount of skill and consideration and which can result in a lawyer being sued if unsuccessful?

I think people throw out the idea that professional services are overpriced all the time without even knowing what they are or what is done for them. Yet the people who complain about paying a couple of hundred euro to a lawyer for a day in court don't seem to mind paying a GP €50 for 10 minutes, a plumber €100 for 20 minutes etc

oscarBravo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What ever happened to all the other constitutional referenda that were promised?

They won't be held on the same day as the Presidential election, but guess what will?

I listened to a few minutes of Pat Kenny this morning, where a barrister made a case broadly similar to the one I've made here. PK read out dozens of bile-filled and vitriolic text messages, almost none of which had any basis in anything other than populist sentiment.

I don't like populist sentiment. It's a dangerous and unbalanced version of democracy. Whether or not you agree with this proposed amendment (and I agree with PK's guest that it's absolutely certain to pass), is it really the most important or urgent thing we need to be voting on right now?

Laminations

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
I think people throw out the idea that professional services are overpriced all the time without even knowing what they are or what is done for them. Yet the people who complain about paying a couple of hundred euro to a lawyer for a day in court don't seem to mind paying a GP €50 for 10 minutes, a plumber €100 for 20 minutes etc

Oh we mind alright. How much is a Commissioner of Oaths? Now that's a tough job

Overheal

As mentioned in the OP the majority of judges signed on to a voluntary pay cut. That was not a seperation of powers concern. The 22 judges left are the ones being chased after. 22 people, who will not be around forever, and to do it you want to circumcise a little chunk off the top of your constitution. Think about that for just a moment.

Dannyboy83

I think the Judiciary are our last barrier against becoming a full fledged third world government. I think upholding the separation is essential, by any means necessary.

In the last decade, I can't think of a single institution which has been untouched by scandal or corruption. And some of the scandals uncovered were previously unfathomable.

Anything which transfers power away from, or could be used to exert pressure on the judiciary, would be playing with fire, especially given the calibre of politician we suffer from.
Checks and Balances are needed more now than ever before.

HivemindXX

I think this is a probably a bad idea. I'm as much in favour of forcing the 21 hold out judges to take a pay cut as the next man but I also value the judiciaries independance from the government a lot.

Perhaps the solution is to link judges pay to TDs pay. If the government wants to cut judges pay they will have to cut their own to do it.

Being judges I imagine those who took voluntary pay cuts were careful to ensure that their salary remained at the previous level on paper but a situation where forcing a 10% pay cut on the 21 hold outs would also force an additional pay cut on the other 147 judges is possible. I can imagine the scene in the four courts "due to the actions of these 21 judges everyone will now take an additional pay cut, feel free to thank them after I leave the room"