THE IRISH Council for Civil Liberties has raised concerns about the procedures for conducting investigations and appointing lay persons in the proposed judicial conduct committee.
The council gave a “cautious welcome” to proposals by the Government to improve judicial accountability as contained in the scheme of the Judicial Council Bill published yesterday.
Proposed procedures for the committee to initiate and conduct the investigation were described as “sketchy” by Mark Kelly, director of the council.
The lay members of the complaints body would be appointed by the government of the day and would be outnumbered by judges, the council said.
“If people are to have confidence that, in future, complaints against judges will be investigated effectively,” the committee “may require more robust appointment and operating procedures”, Mr Kelly added.
Mr Kelly was happy the long-awaited proposals had “finally seen the light of day”.
The Bill would “significantly improve arrangements for the governance, education and accountability of the judiciary” if it became law, the council said.
The Law Society urged publication and enactment of the Bill “without further delay” and said measures to review allegations of judicial misconduct were “long overdue”.
A system to review complaints of judicial misconduct would “help copper-fasten essential public confidence in the judicial branch of the Government”, Ken Murphy director general of the Law Society said.
Judges were “human” and occasionally their conduct was not what it should be, he said.
Members of the public and the legal profession can “suffer from such lapses”, he said.
While there is an appeal to a higher court when a judge gets a decision wrong there is no appeal when there is a question about the conduct of a judge, he said.
The independence of the judicial decision “must never be undermined”, Mr Murphy said.
But he pointed to other jurisdictions with systems where a judge could be reviewed without endangering their independence.
The Rape Crisis Network of Ireland said “recent controversies involving judges have demonstrated a gap in holding our judiciary to account” and the Bill could “only strengthen our confidence that judges remain servants of the law and are held to the highest standard”.
A spokeswoman for the Bar Council said that it had “no role in this” which was a “matter for the judiciary and the Government”.
Barrister Ercus Stewart welcomed the publication of the scheme.
However, he did not see why legal professionals could not be on the conduct committee and said their expertise might be useful.
JUDICIAL BILL MAIN POINTS
Establishment of a judicial council
Creation of a judicial conduct committee
New guidelines for judicial ethics and conduct
Creation of procedures for investigating complaints against judges
All investigations will be carried out in private and the identity of neither the complainant nor the judge may be made public
There will be provision for carrying out an investigation into the mental or physical health of judges
Sanctions include a reprimand, or a recommendation that the judge follow a specific course of action, or recommendation of procedural change.
The committee will have the powers of the High Court in compelling witnesses and ensuring the production of documents
The judicial council will promote high standards, efficiency and continued education among judges
It will have a number of committees, including a statutory judicial studies institute, to further education and to provide information, including on sentencing and judicial support committees
