Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Not at all.

There are two brief comments that I would like to make on rule of law issues but they touch on areas where we may need a debate. There is a man who continues to be in prison because he will not purge his contempt in relation to a civil matter. I am on the record as saying that the man in question, Mr. Enoch Burke, should purge his contempt. I am concerned nevertheless about how, in a civil dispute on a relatively minor matter, a person could end up in jail for a considerable period of time and, in this case, regarding a matter that cannot be dealt with until at least Christmas in relation to the substantive issue of dispute.

I understand clearly the courts have to uphold the rule of law. At the same time, when one considers there are many reasons a person might not purge contempt, and there was a spectrum of virtue here ranging from a high conscience to sheer stubbornness, nonetheless, the court has to be concerned about the rule of law itself being brought into dispute where, in relatively minor matter, a person could continue to languish in prison for a long period of time. I wonder whether other solutions can be found and whether we should help by discussing what legislative measures might bring into being alternative solutions.

The second issue I would like to raise briefly is that of two retired judges who were appointed to the Dubai International Financial Centre, DIFC, Courts during the summer. I believe senior agents of the State would have nominated them and encouraged them to take up those positions. Nonetheless, after a campaign involving people such as the leader of the Labour Party and many others, they were effectively forced to step back from these positions that they had taken up and that they had been approached about.

I am concerned about a trial-by-Twitter culture that puts pressure on private citizens in situations where the State itself fails to take a lead. I have taken a lead by criticising the State's engagement with China. I warn about our trade and other links with authoritarian regimes in China, the Middle East and elsewhere. However, where we have a situation where the State is happy to do business with all sorts of regimes and takes a pragmatic approach to these matters, it is wrong that private citizens can be ganged up on and can be pointed at. It is easy to point at other people, to embarrass them and to say what they ought or ought not to do. Politicians let themselves down by getting on that particular bandwagon over the summer. People have a right, as private citizens, to consider proposals that are put to them. However, where the State, acting on behalf of the community fails to take a lead, it is a lamentable episode when private citizens then find themselves targeted for making what they regarded as a reasonable decision to take up a particular role. The very agents of the State who perhaps encouraged them to take up the role were silent when they came under pressure. There was something very unfair about that.