Section 35.5 of the Constitution is very specific.
It says The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.
We know what it's there for — to make sure that a judge can't be victimised if his decisions are upsetting the politicians. It protects the independence of the judiciary by guaranteeing that judges can't be singled out for unfair treatment.
That's fair.
We know what it's not there for as well, though. It's not there to protect judges from pay cuts imposed across the entire public service. It's not there to single judges out for preferential treatment.
Now that the government has decided to hold a referendum on judges' pay, their Lordships are not happy, and I suppose it's hard to blame them, but it's also hard to have sympathy for them. These people are doing all right financially, apart from the ones who might have got themselves involved in shaky property deals during the boom.
A referendum to reduce judges' pay will certainly succeed, but then we might find ourselves faced with a tricky problem. If some judge decides to fight his case in the courts, who will decide if he's right or wrong??
Leaving all that aside, I think this proposal will be hugely popular, but politicians are politicians and this government has to make some savagely unpopular decisions. So just watch out for the announcement of the cuts in judges' pay and scan the papers the same day for the cuts that will affect you. You can be sure they'll use it to hide the nasty bits.
A jury of his peers perhaps, I don't know. Wouldn't the outcome of a referendum be final? Although, the Lisbon treaty part two springs to mind!
I don't know, but you could never be up to these lawyer types. Who's to say what they'd come up with?
Rupert Murdoch probably. The ugly oul feck has his greedy fingers in everything else political and judicial.
What about a tribunal of enquiry?
This statement is actually pretty funny. Apparently every judge in the country is up to their necks in negative equity.
It's going to be fun have a case heard in an Irish Court during the next few years. Remember, the court will prefer cash over cheques from saavy advocates.
I'm glad you said "apparently". You can't say that for certain and I don't want anyone making unsupportable assertions regarding this bunch. Ok?
Well, here's the report of the plaintive cry from Master of the High Court Justice Honahan for the banks to stop "hounding borrowers to suicide".
You can of course believe that the Justice was moved to speak solely by the plight of his fellow man of course. I choose to believe that he is an Irish judge, and probably a representative one.
Well Bock,
Gene Kerrigan had a simple answer to this question that doesn't require a referendum. Simply tax anything above €80,000 at 100%. It could be done with a stroke of the pen.
Of course, it would have to apply to everyone else in the country too, so can't see that happening. There's still pockets to be lined you know.