JUDGES ARE expected to live exemplary lives. In the great majority of cases, they do. Their specialised function in society means they are expected to be impartial; to avoid public controversy and conflicts of interest. On occasion, controversy is thrust upon them. That happened during the past 12 months as the Government attempted to correct the public finances by introducing a public service pension levy and pay cuts.
Four out of five members of the judiciary have done the honourable thing and made voluntary contributions to the pension levy, introduced last February. Chief Justice John Murray saw them as “a matter of duty”. The Minister for Justice believed the upper echelons in society should lead by example. However, 30 judges have yet to answer this call to public duty and have opted, so far, to exercise self-interest. Avarice can set a destructive example in public life and, in this case, erode confidence in a judiciary that has served the State well.
Members of the judiciary were exempted from the pension levy on constitutional grounds. The Government was advised this was necessary because Article 35 states: “the remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuation in office”. This provision was designed to preserve judicial independence and to protect individual judges from political interference. Following public controversy over the nature of this blanket exemption, however, the Chief Justice established a voluntary scheme whereby judges could contribute to their generous pensions like other public servants.
Ten months later, the judiciary received a second exemption amounting to between 10 and 15 per cent of their salaries when the Government introduced €4 billion in cuts to welfare allowances, services and public service pay. Nobody likes to lose money. But some can afford it more than others. It is hard to promote ideas of “fairness” and “social solidarity” if judicial salaries remain untouched while dole recipients experience cuts.
There is little point in asking judges to take voluntary pay cuts of 10 to 15 per cent. Some would again behave well, others badly. Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan showed his unhappiness by announcing a judicial pay freeze for the life of this Government. There is another approach. A Fine Gael Bill before the Dáil proposes a constitutional referendum to permit cuts in judges’ pay at a time of financial crisis, provided similar reductions happen elsewhere in the public service. That is an equitable approach which would not interefere with their independence.