Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

This is an important and useful debate that links in to a parliamentary question I have tabled, which we shall deal with later, on the issue of judicial conduct. Before the Minister's time, he was, no doubt, involved in wearing a different hat as Attorney General, and we had a great debate on the general public concern that, while we are very well served by excellent judges, each appears to be a corporate soul in his or her own court. It is important for the public to have faith in the criminal justice system if there is to be certainty and consistency in regard to judgments.

The information we get is often partial. Nobody sits through a full court case. Even the court reporter can only synopsise the flavour, demeanour and all that takes place over several days of a court case in a few paragraphs, but that does not give the full picture. Sometimes judges are unfairly criticised.

There is a need to bring the judicial arm of the justice system into a structure that allows for consistency and confidence in the system. That has to be done in such a way that gives it absolute independence. It is a hard balance to strike, I do not pretend it is an easy one. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe said there should be an explanation, but for many it would be a horrific intrusion to have to explain in open court why they are doing something while for others it would be normal transparency.

There is a need to look at the whole issue of judicial conduct, training and conferencing so that shared values and understanding of evolving societal matters are fully comprehended across the Judiciary and everybody buys into it, and that there are better communications with this House and the Judiciary in regard to the intention of the law makers as opposed to the law interpreters. In that context, the suggestions by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Jim O'Keeffe concerning understood tariffs and guidelines are useful. If there is disagreement about them it should be a two-way dialogue so that we can better understand the reasoning of the Judiciary, and craft our laws better than we currently do to suit the needs of the process. Having practised for many years in the courts, the Tánaiste is particularly well placed to bring that judgment to the House. The independence, which is important, has led to a disconnect that is eroding public confidence. Probably to political advantage and to the annoyance of many of his former legal colleagues, the Tánaiste made great play of public concern over some judicial decisions. While we make the law and set tariffs in primary statutes, they must be interpreted and administered in the courts in an understandable, parallel and consistent manner. In that way, the public can have confidence in us as law-makers and in the Judiciary as law interpreters and decision-makers on individual cases.

See this speech in context