The nomination of John Murray as Chief Justice comes at a challenging time for the Judiciary, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
The nomination of Mr Justice Murray as Chief Justice was widely anticipated, as he was regarded in both legal and political circles as the front-runner for the job. This was due both to his legal experience and his political connections.
His legal experience is extensive. It includes two stints as Attorney General, 10 years on the European Court of Justice, and five years on the Supreme Court.
He is the only former Attorney General now sitting on the bench, and this is seen as important as he brings experience of working in Government to the position of the highest-ranking judge in the State and guardian of the Judiciary's independence. Political as well as legal skills will be needed, but he has shown his ability to deal with this complex interface in the course of his career.
He came to the position of Attorney General through his connection to Fianna Fáil, which began when he was a student. His first tenure as Attorney General was in 1982, when the then taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, plucked him from the Law Library to serve in the wake of Mr Patrick Connolly's dramatic resignation as a result of the McArthur affair. The man later convicted of murder was arrested in the Attorney General's flat.
Mr Murray's term was brief, as the government fell three months later, but he left his mark as the author of the anti-abortion constitutional amendment proposed by Fianna Fáil.
In an interview published in 1991, before the X case, he said that the amendment proved to have been a "desirable protection in the Constitution".
He described himself as a practising Catholic in the interview, but added that he considered religion to be a private matter, and that it was incumbent on legislators to cater for minorities.
"Laws must reflect the ethos, within reason, of society if they are to be respected and if they are to work. On the other hand, where you have a significant minority interest, every effect must be made to cater for it, even if it involves intruding on the wishes of the majority. It's a question of proportionality."
During his term as Attorney General, Fine Gael called for his resignation following an intervention in a debate between it and the Government on Northern Ireland policy during the election campaign. Fine Gael had proposed an all-Ireland police force and courts to combat terrorism. Mr Murray said the proposal was unconstitutional. The party claimed it was inappropriate for an Attorney General to make such a statement.
His next stint as Attorney General also brought controversy, most notably surrounding the then fraught issue of extradition. In 1988 he refused to extradite Father Patrick Ryan to face IRA-related charges, on the basis that he would not receive a fair trial. This followed statements in both the British media and House of Commons suggesting he was guilty.
Mr Murray said in the 1991 interview that the decision not to extradite Mr Ryan was one he took alone, informing the government of it when he had made up his mind. He later won a substantial sum in libel damages from the Sunday Telegraph for its comments on his decision.
This independence will be needed in his new position, where the meaning of the constitutional independence of the Judiciary will come under close scrutiny as Judge Brian Curtin faces the inquiry into his alleged possession of child pornography, a charge of which he was acquitted.
Various aspects of this unprecedented inquiry, which include whether unconstitutionally-obtained evidence can be used, will inevitably end up before the courts.
Their final port of call will be the Supreme Court, to be presided over by Mr Justice Murray.
There will be other challenges, and the vexed question of the extent to which the courts can force the State to uphold citizens' rights will not go away.
The present Attorney General, Mr Rory Brady SC, has said that citizens should address themselves to politicians to seek to have their rights upheld, rather than the courts, and this view is shared by a majority of the Supreme Court.
It was tested in the State's challenge to a High Court ruling by Mr Justice Peter Kelly, ordering the State to adhere to its own timetables for building high support units for at-risk children.
As one of the majority overturning that ruling on the basis that it breached the separation of powers, Mr Justice Murray said the courts could only make such a mandatory order when an organ or agency of the State had disregarded its constitutional obligations in an exemplary fashion. This did not apply in this case.
Mr Justice Murray was also one of the Supreme Court majority which ruled in the Jamie Sinnott case that the State's obligation to provide primary education ended when a person like Mr Sinnott reached the age of 18.
The court he presides over is unlikely to be unduly activist. However, the advent of the era of the European Convention on Human Rights and the evolution of the law has, in the view of many lawyers, ended that of reading "unenumerated" rights into the Constitution.