A major reform of the working practices of judges and the operation of the courts is recommended in a report, to be published soon, from the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.
Following the Sheedy drink-driving controversy earlier this year, which led to the resignation of two senior judges, the report proposes the establishment of a judicial conduct review body.
Entitled The Judiciary, the report, which has been seen by The Irish Times, also recommends a review of the in camera rule to allow wider media coverage of family law cases.
The new conduct review body would be asked to draw up a written code of conduct for judges and oversee a formal complaint procedure. At present, members of the judiciary can only be removed under impeachment provisions set down in the Constitution.
The committee's report observes that "because no formal or informal arrangements exist for the review of the conduct of judges of the Circuit and superior courts, public concern with the conduct of those judges can be dealt with only by way of the drastic impeachment process . . . "
It continues: "It is a basic democratic right that those who feel aggrieved by a judge's conduct should have an avenue of recourse."
The conduct review body, the document says, "would necessarily include the issue as to whether the health - physical or mental - of a judge removes the judge's ability to deliver impartial and reasonable judgments".
However, the report notes that "a clear line should be drawn in the public's mind between a judge's decisions and a judge's conduct". In this regard it recommends that "a complaints body should have no power to retry cases or reverse decisions".
It concludes that "the dangers that a judge's reputation could be wrongly injured by the complaints process has to be tackled in the detailed legislation".
In what is likely to be a controversial recommendation the report notes that "in keeping with the principle of separation of powers, such a statutory body should be manned by the judges themselves". The members of the conduct review body would consist of the Chief Justice and the presidents of the other courts.
The body would, under new legislation, have the power to dismiss complaints deemed to be frivolous or vexatious. However, no legal sanction is proposed for judicial members where the review body upholds a complaint.
Any member of the judiciary found guilty of a "minor complaint" would have to undergo counselling or training or could be asked to issue a written apology to the complainant. The report recommends that the review body should carry out a full investigation of serious complaints.
"Legislation should require that the judge complained of should be given a hearing and have the resources to put forward his or her case. If the body decides that the case stands, it should forward a report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for presentation to the Oireachtas."
The government of the day would then have to decide whether the report warranted an impeachment by the Oireachtas of the named judge. The report also recommends that any impeachment of a judge require a two-thirds majority of members of the Dail and Seanad rather than the present simple majority.
The report notes that "numerous and changing ethical issues confront judges". In this regard it recommends that the review body prepare a written code of conduct for judges. This would cover areas such as judicial independence, integrity, diligence, equality and impartiality. It would also outline the extent to which members of the judiciary could get involved in civil, charitable and political activities.
The report also contains recommendations for an overhaul of the reporting of family law cases which are now held in private.
"The exclusion of the media in family law matters may be something that the Oireachtas should address. Similar safeguards as apply in respect of sexual offence cases could apply in the reporting of family law cases . . . "
The document notes that in family law cases "restrictions are justified in order to `preserve, for the sake of the children and their welfare, a decent privacy in relation to the disputes which have arisen between their parents'.
"Whilst this exception may be justifiable on grounds of privacy, it is difficult to reconcile this with the blanket ban on reporting, particularly as bona fide representatives of the media are allowed entry to rape trials which are also distressing cases."