Judge's pay referendum

pog it

Can anyone tell me what the motivation behind this is? Is it just a populist stunt at root?

I just find it amazing that they are putting this to the people.

Cill Dara Abu

Populist stunt, as if anyone wants Judges to not get a pay cut.

laoch na mona

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Populist stunt, as if anyone wants Judges to not get a pay cut.

the judges might object

FreudianSlippers

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:

Wolfe Tone

You would like believe Judges would be above being influenced by cash but thats not realistic... No vote from me.

Cill Dara Abu

laoch na mona wrote: »

the judges might object

Doesn't matter what they do this is a democratic vote.

FreudianSlippers

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You would like believe Judges would be above being influenced by cash but thats not realistic... No vote from me.

It's not necessarily their fault; you see it all the time in the US. They just keep changing the rate of pay until the honest ones cannot afford to remain on the bench and the greedy ones who are not above a little mild corruption take their places.

They're not doing anything overtly illegal usually, they just choose to interpret the law in a way that benefits that party's stance.

Pride Fighter

I cannot in my right mind support this referendum. In a healthy democracy there are checks and balances. Although judges are sometimes slow to reach a conclusion when they do it is fair and final. If the national parliament can decide judges pay, it is an affront to democracy in my view. The parliament will just threaten to lower judges pay if a court case came up and the state wanted the outcome a certain way. Shame on the government for this.

tasha200

I thought it was in the constitution that judges pay cannot be changed, referendums are usually to change the constitution. So the government supposedly want the judges to take a pay cut like everyone else in the country... But youd wonder, I mean how many judges are they, surely the referendum in itself will cost more to admin? Than the potential savings of their wages getting cut?

I dunno really, a populist thing so

irishh_bob

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:

been hearing that arguement for some time and i still dont buy it , allowing the goverment to set judges pay shouldnt in anyway effect the integrity and independance of the courts , might aswell say cutting consultants pay will mean enda kenny stands over a cardiac surgeons while hes removing a heart

woodoo

laoch na mona wrote: »

the judges might object

Over ruled

donegal11

I bet most of the people objecting are in the legal profession. Why should the legal profession be sheltered from a downturn in wages across the whole economy. It makes me laugh when people come out with stuff like "The parliament will just threaten to lower judges pay if a court case came up and the state wanted the outcome a certain way", But never point out the opposite case of the government giving pay increases to the judiciary to help encourage them to make favorable decisions? funny how I heard no shouts about independence during the boom.

FreudianSlippers

donegal11 wrote: »

I bet most of the people objecting are in the legal profession. Why should the legal provision be sheltered from a downturn in wages across the whole economy. It makes me laugh when people come out with stuff like "The parliament will just threaten to lower judges pay if a court case came up and the state wanted the outcome a certain way", But never point out the opposite case of the government giving pay increases to the judiciary to help encourage them to make favorable decisions? funny how I heard no shouts about independence during the boom.

I don't see how it would have any impact on people in the legal profession other than Judges?

Again, the issue is not the reduction in the pay of Judges, it's about ending separation of powers and giving the Oireachtas blanket control over the judiciary via their pay.

Generally, 5.1 and 5.2 are OK, it's 5.3 that poses a problem.



I should also say that the Judges agreed that there should be some method of controlling pay, but it should be done via an independent body.

donegal11

Well, don't a fair portion of the legal profession want to be appointed judges eventually(is that not like the goal for most). And judges pay would serve as a benchmark figure for the rest of the legal profession.

Mr Ed

The government can't simply threaten to reduce their pay to sway an outcome of a trial.

The referendum only allows for a law to be passed reducing the pay of judges proportionately if the pay of public servants is being or has been reduced and that reduction is stated to be “in the public interest”.

Also it will allow for a law to be passed making judges subject to the “Public Service Pension Levy” and to any other future similar charge or charges.

At present, Judges are not legally obliged to pay the “Public Service Pension Levy” although they may voluntarily choose to make an equivalent contribution.

Info taken from http://www.referendum2011.ie

FreudianSlippers

donegal11 wrote: »

Well, don't a fair portion of the legal profession want to appointed judges eventually(is that not like the goal for most).

No. There are many more solicitors and barristers than could ever possibly be a judge in this jurisdiction.

And judges pay would serve as a benchmark figure for the rest of the legal profession.

No. Solicitors fees are in no way related to Judge's pay and barristers, as sole traders, do not get salaries.

FreudianSlippers

Mr Ed wrote: »

The government can't simply threaten to reduce their pay to sway an outcome of a trial.

The referendum only allows for a law to be passed reducing the pay of judges proportionately if the pay of public servants is being or has been reduced and that reduction is stated to be “in the public interest”.

The problem with the law is 5.3 which is vague and allows for the legislature to pass laws as they wish. There is nothing to stop them from passing a law at any time.

Also it will allow for a law to be passed making judges subject to the “Public Service Pension Levy” and to any other future similar charge or charges.

At present, Judges are not legally obliged to pay the “Public Service Pension Levy” although they may voluntarily choose to make an equivalent contribution.

Info taken from http://www.referendum2011.ie

They can already to that since 1959, see O'Byrne v Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1.


In any event, it does not make a good enough argument to effectively end the separation of powers. If nothing else it's a large symbolic end to the separation and becomes a slippery slope for future powers of the Oireachtas (see the second referendum; 30th Amendment Bill)

Manach

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The problem with the law is 5.3 which is vague and allows for the legislature to pass laws as they wish. There is nothing to stop them from passing a law at any time.

A similar point was made in a radio interview from the referendum chair on Morning Ireland (the 13th I think) about this referendum.

donegal11

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No. There are many more solicitors and barristers than could ever possibly be a judge in this jurisdiction.


No. Solicitors fees are in no way related to Judge's pay and barristers, as sole traders, do not get salaries.

Ok so a profession filled with people with the potential to be judges wouldn't care about their potential future salaries being reduce

Yeah pay is not directly related, but I would find it hard to believe that judges pay didn't serve as some type of benchmark in relation to fees in the profession.

FreudianSlippers

donegal11 wrote: »

Ok so a profession filled with people with the potential to be judges wouldn't care about their potential future salaries being reduce

Yeah pay is not directly related, but I would find it hard to believe that judges pay didn't serve as some type of benchmark in relation to fees in the profession.

No, some far off possibility that a handful of people will eventually become a judge will have no visible impact on this.

The reason that the legal profession is against it is because it reflects an absolute departure from the principle of separation of powers.

Wolfe Tone

Look at it this way, politicians could also use it to increase wages to influence things...

I'm a "left winger", I think that the money they earn is too much but the government cant have that type of influence, the separation of powers is a core legal pillar which is on somewhat shaky ground already and this would pretty much obliterate it.

amacachi

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Look at it this way, politicians could also use it to increase wages to influence things...

Why not argue that their recent pay rises way ahead of inflation did just that?

Wolfe Tone

amacachi wrote: »

Why not argue that their recent pay rises way ahead of inflation did just that?

Who gave them those pay rises?

amacachi

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Who gave them those pay rises?

You tell me, I don't know.

Wolfe Tone

amacachi wrote: »

You tell me, I don't know.

Well then you are missing the entire point and you need to rethink your initial argument and look into it more.

ResearchWill

donegal11 wrote: »

Ok so a profession filled with people with the potential to be judges wouldn't care about their potential future salaries being reduce

Yeah pay is not directly related, but I would find it hard to believe that judges pay didn't serve as some type of benchmark in relation to fees in the profession.

There is nothing in the constitution stoping the government setting lower pay of an incoming judge. The constitution only stopped the government from reducing the pay of a sitting judge. The reason for this was in the past it was a way to control errant judges.

There are currently approx 13k lawyers and about 150 judges, do the maths on the chances of an appointment. I know Judges, as a working Barrister, and most judges take a pay cut to become a judge, the advantage is that the pension is really good. I for one believe the judiciary have served us well, 85% took the pay cuts requested of them, and all this debacle has done is to force the Judicary into a terrible position, to protest is seen as not taking some of the pain, even though the protest is in relation to the control of government. The Judicary have said they agree with the principle but they want an independent body to set the reduction.

As the current proposal the goverenment can change judges pay in line with a class of persons in the interests of the state. What is to stop the government to set the class as judges only, a reduction of 50%, at a time when a number of important cases in relation to human rights are going through the courts.

A HC or SC decision can cost the state millions, army deafness, legal aid, social welfare payments, does anyone really want the defendant in the case able to reduce the judges salary with little or no problem.

amacachi

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well then you are missing the entire point and you need to rethink your initial argument and look into it more.

Couldn't just give an answer instead no?

donegal11

ResearchWill wrote: »

As the current proposal the goverenment can change judges pay in line with a class of persons in the interests of the state. What is to stop the government to set the class as judges only, a reduction of 50%, at a time when a number of important cases in relation to human rights are going through the courts.

A HC or SC decision can cost the state millions, army deafness, legal aid, social welfare payments, does anyone really want the defendant in the case able to reduce the judges salary with little or no problem.

If the government did reduce pay could the judges not resign and go back to their original professions if they weren't happy?

As far as political influence goes who appoints judges? does the government not already appoint/lobby for who they want.

What is the average salary for a judge? How do we compare to the uk? and would it be a disaster if it was reduced more then reductions across the public service? Currently any public sector job can be targeted individually for reductions?

The he last point sounds like a threat by the judges? If you reduce our pay, we'll rule against you.:pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ResearchWill

donegal11 wrote: »

If the government did reduce pay could the judges not resign and go back to their original professions if they weren't happy?

As far as political influence goes who appoints judges? does the government not already appoint/lobby for who they want.

What is the average salary for a judge? How do we compare to the uk? and would it be a disaster if it was reduced more then reductions across the public service? Currently any public sector job can be targeted individually for reductions?

The he last point sounds like a threat by the judges? If you reduce our pay, we'll rule against you.:pac:

The issue with a judge resigning and going back to practise, is the huge problem of now practicing in the court you judged in. There is a convention that a judge cannot if he goes back to practice work in the court he sat in. Any legal team on the other side could object to him appearing in the case.

Judges salarys compare very well, per judge we are amongst the highest paid in the world, but the cost per person in the country is amongst the lowest. The reason for this is the number of judges per person is very low in Ireland. In Europe it is normal to have multi judge courts at all levels. For example Ireland has a population of roughly 4.5 million with about 150 judges Poland on the other hand has population of 40 million but has 9000 judges. While in Ireland judges salary ranges from about 130k to 250k I think our current Chief Justice has refused to take the extra 35k on her appointment.

I recently visited a polish court, while it was very efficient, you would know the time your case would be heard in advance etc. it was slower than our system. A DC judge in Ireland would deal with a hundred plus cases in a list on a given day.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Yes for expanding government power. Yes for jobs.

Mycroft H

Have a look at this -

Its the podcast for morning ireland from the 13th. Bryan McMahon, one of the chairmen of the referendum commission answers questions. Worth a listen.

http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2011/pc/pod-v-pod1310112ndhour40m12smorningireland-pid0-2412120.mp3

In short, Bryan MacMahon says it is a weakening of the separation of powers and its up to the irish people to decide if its and acceptable weakening or not.

ei.sdraob

Interesting how they have time and money to waste on this farce,

Yet something as important to the future (or lack of) of the country and its people; such as Crooked Park Protectionist Racket Agreement or decision to bailout banks is not put to the electorate.

recedite

Mr Ed wrote: »

At present, Judges are not legally obliged to pay the “Public Service Pension Levy” although they may voluntarily choose to make an equivalent contribution.

Info taken from http://www.referendum2011.ie

Who decided they were not obliged to pay the pension levy and why?
According to the ref. commission, a judges take-home pay can be lowered as a result of tax increases and the new Universal Social Charge. What's the difference?
AFAIK "renumeration" = take-home pay + bonuses +perks

TeddyTedson

Who in their right mind is going to be voting not to change this bar Judges and their cronies.

seamus

OK, simple question and pardon my ignorance here;

By what process is the pay of sitting judges increased, and why can't that process be used to decrease it?

After all, a pay increase can equally be used to influence a judge (though perhaps not quite as easily).

Mycroft H

seamus wrote: »

OK, simple question and pardon my ignorance here;

By what process is the pay of sitting judges increased, and why can't that process be used to decrease it?

After all, a pay increase can equally be used to influence a judge (though perhaps not quite as easily).

Article 35, Section 5 of Bunreacht Na hEireann states:

5. The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.



Basically, a sitting judge cannot have his wages cut below his current rate. They can be raised but not lowered. Reducing a sitting judges wage as it stands would be deemed unconstitutional.

This was done to protect the judiciary from the ruling executive of the day reducing his/her wages to sway his/her influence on decisions. In other words it was done to protect the independence of the judiciary and their decisions.

FreudianSlippers

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Who in their right mind is going to be voting not to change this bar Judges and their cronies.

Anyone who understands, values and respects the fundamentally democratic principle of separation of powers. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and almost every modern democracy that I can think of.

recedite wrote: »

Who decided they were not obliged to pay the pension levy and why?
According to the ref. commission, a judges take-home pay can be lowered as a result of tax increases and the new Universal Social Charge. What's the difference?
AFAIK "renumeration" = take-home pay + bonuses +perks

If you look back earlier in the thread (I think post 17) I answered this earlier.

Quite simply, the courts held in O'Byrne v Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1 that they actually can be obliged to pay the levy. In short, the reasoning behind the referendum is pretty moot already since the ruling in the O'Byrne case.

FreudianSlippers

Without being a knob, here is a VERY straightforward explanation of separation of powers in plain English to help, hopefully, understand why both of these proposed amendments are flawed: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

I really suggest reading it, it shouldn't take more than 2 minutes!

reprazant

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Anyone who understands, values and respects the fundamentally democratic principle of separation of powers. It is a cornerstone of our democracy and almost every modern democracy that I can think of.

This is judges own fault though.

They could have, and should have, accepted the pensions levy but refused. It was offered to them on a voluntary level and only 2 took the levy.

If they had accepted the levy, which in their arrogance, they felt was beneath them, there would be no need to have this referendum to basically force them to accept it.

Edit:

Quite simply, the courts held in O'Byrne v Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1 that they actually can be obliged to pay the levy. In short, the reasoning behind the referendum is pretty moot already since the ruling in the O'Byrne case.

if this is the case, why were the not forced to do so? The judges felt they did not need to and the government felt that they could not force them due to the constitution.

seamus

BX 19 wrote: »

Article 35, Section 5 of Bunreacht Na hEireann states:

Sorry, that's not actually what I meant, I should have been clearer.

I was actually asking how judges' pay is raised at present. Does the Dáil vote to raise it or does the minister for justice decide on it?

And additionally I was also posing the question as to why separation of powers is so sancrosanct in relation to the lowering of pay and not the raising of it?

FreudianSlippers

reprazant wrote: »

This is judges own fault though.

They could have, and should have, accepted the pensions levy but refused. It was offered to them on a voluntary level and only 2 took the levy.

If they had accepted the levy, which in their arrogance, they felt was beneath them, there would be no need to have this referendum to basically force them to accept it.

Edit:



if this is the case, why were the not forced to do so? The judges felt they did not need to and the government felt that they could not force them due to the constitution.

That's a good question. It wasn't the Judges that made this decision, it was the advice of the Attorney General. I'm not a big Alan Shatter fan, but he writes a pretty good article here.

donaghs

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Without being a knob, here is a VERY straightforward explanation of separation of powers in plain English to help, hopefully, understand why both of these proposed amendments are flawed: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

I really suggest reading it, it shouldn't take more than 2 minutes!

Having read this, I still dont see any power being taken away from them. As for pay cuts being used as a political threat, I cant see it happening as people would object at a certain point - and also, if our judges have principle and backbone. But, seeing that so few of them took the voluntary cut...

As other posts said, they brought the nuclear option upon themselves by refusing the voluntary cut.

FreudianSlippers

donaghs wrote: »

Having read this, I still dont see any power being taken away from them. As for pay cuts being used as a political threat, I cant see it happening as people would object at a certain point - and also, if our judges have principle and backbone. But, seeing that so few of them took the voluntary cut...

As other posts said, they brought the nuclear option upon themselves by refusing the voluntary cut.

The point isn't that it takes power away from the Judges, the issue is that the amendment fundamentally undermines the separation of powers.

Duke Leonal Felmet

donaghs wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Without being a knob, here is a VERY straightforward explanation of separation of powers in plain English to help, hopefully, understand why both of these proposed amendments are flawed: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

I really suggest reading it, it shouldn't take more than 2 minutes!

Having read this, I still dont see any power being taken away from them. As for pay cuts being used as a political threat, I cant see it happening as people would object at a certain point - and also, if our judges have principle and backbone. But, seeing that so few of them took the voluntary cut...

As other posts said, they brought the nuclear option upon themselves by refusing the voluntary cut.

I'm sorry to say this, but, you're not a very observant person if you cannot tell why both amendments are an erosion of the separation of powers. You actually can't seem to tell why any such erosion is a bad thing. I seriously recommend that you look into this topic some more. It will effect the way future governments interact with the public (you) for years to come.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Quite simply, the courts held in O'Byrne v Minister for Finance [1959] IR 1 that they actually can be obliged to pay the levy. In short, the reasoning behind the referendum is pretty moot already since the ruling in the O'Byrne case.

Interesting to see that Alan Shatter himself agrees with this. In his article he states "Presumably to avoid the possibility of getting entangled in difficult litigation with an uncertain outcome, the Government excluded judges from the pension levy." He is saying that the Fianna Fail Attorney General made a lazy/incorrect judgement call in 2009 when he (the AG) advised the govt. to exclude judges from incoming pension levy legislation.
You would think that Shatter would be in the ideal position now to reverse those exclusions in the legislation.

seamus wrote: »

I was actually asking how judges' pay is raised at present. Does the Dáil vote to raise it or does the minister for justice decide on it?

The govt. decides. The govt normally uses the "whip" system to ensure that all of its decisions are rubberstamped by the Dail. The govt. always maintains a majority, even if it means bargaining with the Healy Raes of this world.
This is one reason we don't have a proper separation of powers in Ireland. The Dail cannot legislate independently of govt. unless TD's ignore the whip.
Because of this, the executive (gov) and the legislature (Dail) do not actually function independently.

seamus wrote: »

And additionally I was also posing the question as to why separation of powers is so sancrosanct in relation to the lowering of pay and not the raising of it?

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.

Remember that all judges are nominated by their buddies in the govt. of the day. If you want to be a judge, join one of the main political parties.
This is the other reason we don't have a proper separation of powers in Ireland. The Sheedy affair is a good example of this.

Psychedelic

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?

recedite wrote: »

The govt. decides. The govt normally uses the "whip" system to ensure that all of its decisions are rubberstamped by the Dail.

So under the current system a judge's pay is decided is by the sitting Government? Isn't that what this referendum is trying to bring in, that the Government can control judge's pay?

ebbsy

I will vote no to this proposal. Could the government get a bloody nose this time ?

darragh666

I wonder if judges could end up striking like some public sector workers.

riffmongous

seamus wrote: »

Sorry, that's not actually what I meant, I should have been clearer.

I was actually asking how judges' pay is raised at present. Does the Dáil vote to raise it or does the minister for justice decide on it?

And additionally I was also posing the question as to why separation of powers is so sancrosanct in relation to the lowering of pay and not the raising of it?

This is the main point for me, if separation of powers is so important then why wasn't this an issue before?

FoxT

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.