Judges must maintain their independence, even at the cost of social isolation, retired president of the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Johnson, tells Carol Coulter
WHEN HE retired as president of the High Court last month, Mr Justice Richard Johnson made a trenchant speech urging the upholding of the independence of the judiciary.
He feels that judges should stay out of public controversy, but now that he has retired he admits concern about the direction society has taken, and feels that the question of the death penalty should be on the table for discussion.
“When I was growing up if a murder took place there were headlines in the press for a week. Now no-one notices. People have far less respect for each other than they used to.”
Some of this he blames on the prevalence of sex and violence on television.
Controversially, he believes that the death penalty had a deterrent effect, and thinks it should be considered for some types of murder, though not all.
“If someone arms himself and goes out to rob someone and kills them I don’t see why they should not pay the price. It should be a matter for each individual case.”
However, he acknowledged that it is very difficult to be absolutely certain a person is guilty of murder, and would be deeply concerned about wrong convictions. “If the death penalty existed in Britain the Birmingham Six would have been executed.”
He grew up with an acute awareness of the life of a judge. His father was a District Court judge in Kerry, appointed at the age of 27 in the heat of the Civil War. “He sat in Donegal, Galway, Kerry, and went everywhere with no security,” he said.
He added that his parents came from opposite sides in the Civil War – his uncle, Patrick Shortis, was killed in the GPO.
His father also demonstrated his courage over 40 years later, when in January 1961 he wrote a play highly critical of the institutional care of children, referred to in the Ryan report. The Evidence I Shall Givewas premiered at the Abbey, where it had 87 performances over the year.
This devotion to public duty carried a cost. “We are a client-based society,” Mr Johnson said. “Most people know you can’t talk about cases, but some don’t. There is always someone trying to pull you. My father was a judge for 45 years, and he became practically a recluse in order to avoid being lobbied.
“Being a judge can be very lonely. There’s nowhere you can’t go, but there’s nowhere you can go alone. You can’t write letters to the paper. Nor can your wife. You have to let go of your political connections if you had any.”
Does not the political nature of judicial appointments, where the government of the day nominates judges for formal appointment by the president, implicitly compromise judicial independence?
“That is a valid criticism. But I think we’ve been extraordinarily lucky given the nature of our appointment system. Judges may be stupid and may be wrong, but they have not been political in their decisions – at least as far as I’m aware.”
Asked about lawyers and judges seeking judicial office, he said: “I never canvassed myself. I would be against any such lobbying. If you ever ask someone for something and they give it to you, you are under an obligation to them for the rest of your life.”
He agrees that the question of judicial conduct, long debated in the context of a judicial council, needs to be addressed, though he argues that it is very difficult to get the balance right between the independence of the judiciary and having a mechanism to deal with complaints.
He recalled a comment from his master, Bill Binchy (father of Maeve and William) who told him: “There are two types of judges – slow, courteous and wrong; and rude, rapid and right.”
There have been instances where a judge has taken many weeks to hear a case that would normally take a matter of days, thereby putting the litigants to enormous additional expense. He agrees.
“It’s terribly unfair to impose a judge of that kind of slowness on a litigant, but that kind of thing is exceptional.”
So what should be done about it when it does occur? “If I knew, I’d have done it.”
One of his tasks as president of the High Court was hearing applications from the Law Society to strike off solicitors who breached the statutory regulations of the profession.
He agrees that the Law Society regulations are very strict, but argues that they should be.
“Solicitors should be honest. That’s not too demanding. People are entitled to walk along the street and if they see a brass plate saying ‘solicitor’ to walk in with absolute confidence.”
Now that he has retired, he has no plans to work on a tribunal or related area. “It is not for me. If someone makes me a proposal I would look into it.” However, it is highly unlikely he will be canvassing for a position.