Revelations concerning Judge Alan Mahon's past income tax affairs are a matter of concern. As a barrister, Mr Mahon reached a settlement of £20,000 with the Revenue Commissioners in relation to a "miscalculation" of his tax liabilities for a single year in the late 1980s.
Now that the matter has been drawn to public attention, some prominent individuals would welcome his resignation. Such a development would not, however, be in the public interest as it would cause damage and further delay to the work of the tribunal that Judge Mahon chairs.
There is no doubt that details of this tax settlement embarrassed Mr Mahon, his personal reputation and public standing when they were published 11 years ago. In a statement of explanation on Wednesday, Judge Mahon said he had voluntarily supplied all financial records to the Revenue Commissioners at the time and a shortfall had been established following an audit. The tax settlement , accepted by the Revenue, arose out of a miscalculation, and had not arisen from his use of any undisclosed bank accounts or records, he insisted. Details of the settlement had been disclosed in his written application to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board.
Judge Mahon finds himself in an unenviable position. The public expects particularly high standards from members of the judiciary in their private and public lives. And there is no doubt that damage has been done to his moral authority. Already, Mr Liam Lawlor has indicated the aggressive/defensive line he is likely to adopt before the tribunal. And other persons under investigation may follow suit.
But members of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, having considered Mr Mahon's application which included details of the tax settlement, found him to be a fit and suitable person to become a judge. And they recommended his name to the Coalition Government. He was appointed to the Circuit Court last year and succeeded Mr Justice Flood as chairman of the tribunal which is inquiring into political corruption in the planning process.
It is vitally important that the work of this tribunal be completed with a minimum of delay. Already, it has sat for six years and major elements of its inquiries remain untouched. Damaging allegations against prominent businessmen, politicians and public servants must be investigated before confidence can be restored in the political and planning systems.
The Coalition Government has offered some explanation of the circumstances surrounding the appointment. On being advised about Mr Mahon's tax affairs, it accepted the view of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board that the incident was not an impediment. It is known that difficulty was experienced in finding the judicial support requested by Mr Justice Flood in conducting his inquiries. But, in the tax climate that exists and given the extreme sensitivity of the tribunal's work, the Government would have been better advised to avoid any appointment likely to cause public controversy.