The High Court has decisively rejected Judge Brian Curtin's challenge to the committee set up by the Oireachtas to investigate how he came to be charged with the possession of child pornography.
He now has only one last throw of the dice - an appeal to the Supreme Court - before he must bow to the inevitable.
For the people, through the medium of the Constitution, have given the Oireachtas the power to hold judges accountable for stated misbehaviour. The Curtin case centres on how that right is exercised.
It is now over a year since Judge Curtin was acquitted by direction of the trial judge on a serious criminal charge. The case against him fell due to a search warrant being out of date, so he never answered the substantial charge or offered a clear explanation as to how such material could innocently arrive on his computer. There may be an innocent explanation but the fact that the allegation has been in the public domain for such a long period has already compromised his ability to sit on the bench.
Mr Justice T.C. Smyth's ruling could not be clearer: the Oireachtas has not only the right, but the duty, to ensure public confidence in the justice system; it is inconceivable that it could not take what measures it saw fit to ensure that confidence, provided that the judge's rights to fair procedures and constitutional justice were not compromised. He pointed out that the judge had the right to appear before the committee and be represented, to call witnesses, and to have other witnesses cross-examined. He would have an opportunity to offer an explanation as to why his computer contained images of child pornography, and the judge even drew attention to a recent article in the Law Society Gazette referring to the role of "Trojan" viruses in such cases. If representations made by him were not accepted by the committee set up to collect evidence, he would have the opportunity to make these representations again to the Houses of the Oireachtas. In the view of Mr Justice Smyth, Judge Curtin's constitutional rights were amply protected.
Mindful of the importance of judicial independence in the separation of powers, Mr Justice Smyth stressed that a necessary part of the privilege of the office is the imposition of certain limitations on the public and private lives of judges. He implied that higher standards of conduct were expected of members of the judiciary than of ordinary citizens, a view shared by the public at large as well as his colleagues in the interests of the administration of justice. There should be no surprise about this decision. Judge Curtin now has a decision to make. He can appeal or he can resign but he will not sit on the bench again.