The Supreme Court will give its judgment today on the challenge by Judge Brian Curtin of the Circuit Court to the procedures put in place by the Oireachtas that could lead to his removal from office.
The hearing of the four-day appeal against the High Court's rejection in May 2005 of Judge Curtin's challenge concluded on October 27th last with judgment reserved. The appeal was heard by a seven-judge court because it raised important constitutional issues.
Judge Curtin was acquitted in March 2004 on a charge of knowingly having child pornography. The acquittal was by direction of a Circuit Criminal Court judge after he found the warrant which allowed a search of Judge Curtin's home, during which a computer and other materials were seized by gardaí, was out of date.
A motion for the removal of Judge Curtin was set down before the Oireachtas in May 2004 and was adjourned while a select committee was established to inquire into and compile a report on the judge's alleged misbehaviour.
The committee's proceedings are on hold pending the outcome of the judge's legal challenge.
The Supreme Court appeal centred on Article 35.4 of the Constitution, which provides that a judge shall not be removed from office "except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann calling for his removal".
Lawyers for the Oireachtas and the committee argued the Houses of the Oireachtas had sole power to consider a motion for the removal of a judge. There was no requirement under the Constitution to appoint a "fact-finding" committee and rules of procedure could be amended if the interests of constitutional justice so required, it was submitted.
Counsel for Judge Curtin argued that the committee's procedure was being "stitched together slowly" and that there must be an initial finding of misbehaviour before a resolution for removal of a judge could be set down.
It was also submitted that the procedure proposed by the Oireachtas was not transparent and that the motion for Judge Curtin's removal was ambiguous, with the alleged misbehaviour vaguely defined.