Read on Twitter
There are more important things affecting us at the moment, but for those interested in judicial appointments/independence today's article by Shane Ross @Ross_Shane1 cannot go unchallenged. @AlanEnglish9 @shanephelanindo @Orlaodo @cpkeena @RuadhanIT @LaurCah @dkennytcd /1
1. Public confidence in the Irish judiciary has been shown to be repeatedly high in surveys, with over 84% trusting judges to be truthful in 2020 - see IPSOS Veracity Index https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-06/veracity_index_2020.pdf Judges have consistently scored around 80% in such surveys. /2
2. If the public thought the judiciary was corrupt in fashion claimed by Shane Ross over many years it's not borne out by those repeated survey results. Our judges determine cases in open view, rightly reported by our media, and can be appealed if they get it wrong in a case. /3
3. That public trust has been established by a small judiciary over many years without adequate financial resources. The establishment of the Judicial Council and legislative reform of the judicial appointments system is welcome to ensure that trust is maintained. /4
4. Contrary to some commentary, lawyers have long wanted reform of the judicial appointments process. The Bar Council (representing 2,200 barristers) made such a submission back in 2014 - see link here https://www.lawlibrary.ie/News/Conferences-and-Seminars/Downloads-Reports-and-Submissions/BCSubmission-JudicialAppointments30012014.aspx /5
5. A proper application process enabling the best persons to be appointed for judicial office is vital in a democracy. But that does not mean that we have a corrupt judiciary "who feel under an obligation" or are "nursing a few well-buried, but embarrassing, secrets." /6
6. There's no evidence for that, and casting such innuendo undermines confidence in our judges at the very time it is most needed in world we live in today. Improvements in appointments system must be made, but not from starting point that our judges are corrupt. /7
7. The merits, or demerits of the proposed legislation proposed by @HMcEntee will be well-debated. However, rather than address that Ross goes back to May 2007, when neither O'Donnell nor Gallagher were in any public position. (Gallagher became AG in June 2007). /8
8. The article contains no assessment of any work Donal O'Donnell has carried out, either as a barrister or as a judge. There is no claim made that he has failed to recuse himself in any case which he should not have heard. Neither is there any evidence that Gallagher acted /9
in any wrongful way in his role as AG, either on last occasion or this occasion, by reason of the trip. If he got "largesse" from Dunne it was presumably proper legal fees for work done on his behalf. If there is any conflict of interest issue arises while he is AG, he can /10
delegate his functions to an official in the AG's office. Every AG encounters some conflict where they have previously acted or advised on a matter during their term, and there are well-established procedures to deal with it. None of this is acknowledged by Ross. /11
9. The loaded use of the term "baggage" in the article implies that any lawyer who has represented unpopular people, i.e. defendants in criminal cases or a businesswoman who has defaulted on a loan, might be ineligible for public office from such "baggage". That is wrong /12
and must be contested.
10. Others can speak about calibre of Donal O'Donnell and Paul Gallagher. I believe them to be beyond reproach. If they had questions to answer about any conflict of interest in their public roles then make an appropriate complaint to the Gardaí. /13
10. Others can speak about calibre of Donal O'Donnell and Paul Gallagher. I believe them to be beyond reproach. If they had questions to answer about any conflict of interest in their public roles then make an appropriate complaint to the Gardaí. /13
11. But it's time to challenge and contest the Shane Ross innuendo campaign, devoid of any evidence of corruption in the actual disposition of justice in this country. Public debate on the reform of judicial appointments deserves better than that provided by Mr. Ross. END. /14
