Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The amendments I have tabled reflect those tabled by Senator Clifford-Lee and Senator Ó Donnghaile. I appeal to Senators in the spirit of compromise that has been evident over the past hour or so to accept my proposals having regard to the fact that they are designed to achieve what is a common objective, that is to say, increased transparency, subject to the need to address what might be regarded as exceptional circumstances where publicity might not be warranted.

The key amendment is amendment No. 55. In its current form section 55 provides that a hearing of a complaint before a panel of inquiry shall be conducted otherwise than in public unless the conduct committee directs that to safeguard the administration of justice it should be conducted in public. A similar arrangement applies later in section 66 in respect of a hearing conducted by the judicial conduct committee in respect of a complaint that has been the subject of an investigation by a panel of inquiry and in respect of which a report has been submitted to the conduct committee.

Amendment No. 55 proposes to amend the relevant section to provide that the default arrangement would be that a hearing would be held in public unless the conduct committee directs that to safeguard the administration of justice such a hearing should be conducted in private. Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 are consequential upon this change. They concern the notification requirements to the judge and the complainant. Essentially, where a hearing is to be conducted in public, whether in whole or in part, both the judge and the complainant are given an opportunity to request that some or all of that hearing may be conducted otherwise than in public. This is an exceptional provision. Section 51 specifies that the conduct committee shall not accede to such a request in the absence of reasonable or sufficient cause. Amendment No. 66 mirrors amendment No. 55 in the event that there are any court proceedings arising out of the making of a complaint.

Amendment No. 60 relates to section 66 and is a new provision specifying that a determination is to be published where it arises out of a hearing that is being held in public. By contrast, amendment No. 61 deals with a situation where a hearing has been held in whole or in part otherwise than in public.In this case, the conduct committee has discretion as to whether a determination should be published. The remaining number of amendments largely relate to the information which can be included in the annual report of the judicial conduct committee. The changes being proposed flow from amendments which I have already outlined. In amendment No. 59, which concerns section 66, the deletion proposed is consequent on the fact that by virtue of amendment No. 75, the annual report must contain "the name of a judge to whom section 66(11)applies". There is no longer any discretion in this matter, but by way of further background, the scenario contemplated by section 66(11) is one where a judge is required to make a report as to his or her compliance with a requirement contained in a determination and either does not make such a report or does not satisfy the conduct committee that he or she is indeed in compliance. Amendment No. 75 also requires that the name of a judge to whom section 58 applies be published in the annual report. The section in question deals with the case where there is failure or refusal on the part of the judge concerned to co-operate with a panel of inquiry. The amendment also deals with reprimands which are issued under section 66, following the conclusion of the complaint process. The default position is that both the name of the judge and the reprimand issued should be published. However, there is something of a saver, where it is considered that in order to safeguard the administration of justice, such publications should not occur at all. Amendment No. 70, however, will ensure that there is information about the number of cases where a reprimand was issued but the information about such a reprimand is not being made public. Amendment No. 67 expands the provision on the annual report of the conduct committee, which is contained in section 69. It underlines the fact that where evidence is given otherwise than in public, this does not prevent the publication in the annual report of the findings of a panel of inquiry or of the information required to be published by virtue of section 73 in relation to reprimands. Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 are technical amendments which take account of the restructuring of section 73, consequent on amendment No. 75.

I merely wish to say that the objective of these amendments is to achieve balance. Having regard to discussions that took place since the publication of the Bill, I felt that perhaps we could achieve a greater level of balance as far as information is concerned and that is why I proposed these amendments, which are not dissimilar to amendments tabled by other Senators.