State getting retired judges to do work

Carawaystick

Recently Nial Fennelly investigated to see if Enda sacked Martin Callinan from the garda top job.
However he had to give up the judging because he was too old.
My question is if a person is too old to be judging why are they paid to do another job because they used to be a judge?

nuac

Carawaystick wrote: »

Recently Nial Fennelly investigated to see if Enda sacked Martin Callinan from the garda top job.
However he had to give up the judging because he was too old.
My question is if a person is too old to be judging why are they paid to do another job because they used to be a judge?

Retirement ages are general. It is only a number

Some people are not fit to work beyond age 50.

Some are fit to work on to 80+

dats_right

Carawaystick wrote: »

My question is if a person is too old to be judging why are they paid to do another job because they used to be a judge?

What a daft question!

Judges must retire once they reach the mandatory retirement age. A compulsory retirement age is arbitrary and takes no account of a particular judges ability to perform at the highest level. Moreover, just because a judge reaches retirement age obviously does not mean that their outstanding experience, legal skills/knowledge and ability disappears. It would seem to me to be silly in the extreme not to call upon such outstandingly talented retired judges to conduct the type of inquiries or investigations you refer.

Victor

It means they are experience judges of proven ability and they have no other caseload that might interfere.

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

It means they are experience judges of proven ability

But judges don't investigate in the common law system? They judge evidence other people put in front of them.

seamus

Coming to a judgement involves meticulously poring over details and notes and piecing together evidence to try and build up the facts into as much detail as possible. They will, from a long career in law, have been involved in countless interviews with defendants (and plaintiffs), done tens of thousands of research hours and have an in-depth understanding of how processes fit together and are (or should be) documented.

Commissions and investigations such as Fennelly aren't done by a lone judge standing on street corners with a cigarette in his mouth waiting to pounce on someone leaving work and interviewing them. The judge leads the investigation, with a large team of researchers, interviewers and other legal professionals assisting in the investigation. In that regard it very similar to judging a case - taking everyone's input, listening to their version of events and fitting them together to produce one scenario that fits all the facts.

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

But judges don't investigate in the common law system? They judge evidence other people put in front of them.

The judge may be only chairing the investigation. It may be another person who is lead investigator.