Sir, – In May 2010 I exercised my right as a citizen to make a complaint to the clerk of the Seanad in respect of claims by Senator Ivor Callely for travel expenses from his holiday home in west Cork. I had no idea that this simple act would unleash a political and media storm; I simply felt as a citizen and a taxpayer that I had been pushed too far. I certainly didn’t expect that the process that I initiated would eventually result in this week’s constitutional referendum that seeks to give extended powers to Oireachtas committees.
Having attended the hearings and observed the process that initially found Senator Callely to be guilty before having that decision overturned by the courts, I have been following what little debate there has been on the proposed referendum with more interest than most. From seeing the existing process at first hand, I have reservations about the notion of giving such extended powers to politicians by way of a constitutional amendment.
My experience of the examination of Senator Callely in the committee hearings would not give me confidence in the ability of politicians to investigate any matter in the best interests of the public; any semblance of adherence to the principles of law or of moral standards is suspended in such a forum. At one point during the questioning of Senator Callely, Senator Denis O’Donovan laboured at some length about the “quantum” of expenses involved, giving an opinion that if only €500 or so had been at issue, none of us would be there (at the hearing). In other words, it was not an issue of the senator’s moral suitability for office, but just that the sheer amount of money involved meant that it had to be investigated.
If this type of logic were to be applied to trials in the courts, our jails would be half empty! While we have many good public representatives, we also tend to elect a high percentage of politicians of limited ability, based on their capacity to fix the drains or get the roads tarred rather than their legislative abilities.
We don’t want such simpletons given wide-ranging powers that would essentially allow them to take the place of the courts and examine any person, for any reason that they think fit.
It might not be a major concern at this point in time, but the future ramifications are unnerving. The wording of the 30th Amendment is vague and ambiguous and knowing what I know of the process, it frightens me. For the sake of democracy, we need to vote No to this amendment and send them back to the drawing board to come up with a better proposal; future generations will thank us for it. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As the solicitor who represented Senator Ivor Callely in his successful vindication in the High Court which held that the Oireachtas Committee of Inquiry breached his constitutional rights, I have a particular interest in the proposed constitutional amendment extending the powers of Oireachtas Committees of Inquiry.
In Mr Callely’s case the High Court held that the Committee of Inquiry did not accord with due process in that, inter alia, the committee failed “to exercise their adjudicative function in an appropriate judicial manner by making a political judgment on the issues in the investigation”.
I am concerned that the proposed constitutional amendment would extend to a political lynch mob the right to make a political judgment on their political adversaries. Such an inquiry could also be used to shift the blame for government blunders to citizens who will be forced to carry the can when the primary responsibility may lie with the government in failing to govern and regulate appropriately.
The judiciary has a duty to make balanced and impartial judgments.
Alleged financial savings cannot justify handing over the right to destroy the citizen’s reputation to a committee of vote hungry hyenas who may find the temptation of lurid and exaggerated headlines in enhancing their profile and political reputation more attractive than the administration of due process.
Whilst Ivor Callelly has been held up to public derision, there is a popular perception that, whatever the result of the Oireachtas inquiry, he deserved to be condemned irrespective of due process.
This argument is fundamentally flawed because the public perception has been based on reportage by the media of the committee’s findings and the media may try to hide behind legal privilege in reporting the committee’s findings.
Ivor Callelly’s account has never been ventilated on its merits to the same level as the reportage of the committee’s flawed findings.
If this constitutional amendment is passed, could the rights of the citizen be diminished by the citizen being subjected to a political witch hunt when political expediency would so dictate? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The ex-attorneys general (October 24th) appear to believe that they and the judiciary – political appointees – can be trusted, but not those who appoint them.
They go on to imply that reductions in salary may, in some unspecified manner, limit the independence of the judiciary. Their logic would indicate that the pay rises which preceded would have had a similar effect.
Evidence would help. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In listening to the debate on the advisability of permitting the Oireachtas to conduct hearings versus letting the courts be the sole arbiter on wrongdoing it seems the vast majority are taking it for granted that every court administers perfect justice every time.
I can only assume none of them have been unfortunate enough to have been subjected to the very fallible judges who grace our esteemed courts of justice. I have bad news for them: it simply isn’t so. In my opinion, based on experience of the courts, one is just as likely to suffer wrongly at the hands of an incompetent, perhaps even biased, judge. Personally, I’d rather take my chances with a number of elected “judges” answerable to public opinion than with a single member of the insider-elite who answers to nobody. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In opposing the view of the eight attorneys general on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore began by criticising their opposition to the proposed amendment allowing a reduction in judges' pay. As I listened, I assumed they were opposed to reductions in judges' pay. Later I read what the attorneys general had written (October 24th). They said, "The proposal to allow proportionate reductions in judicial remuneration (which we support in principle) provides insufficient protection for the independence of the judiciary."
I am surprised that Mr Gilmore made no reference in what he said on air to the fact that the attorneys general support the principle of reductions in judicial remuneration. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Even if the real issue of the curtailment of judicial review and the protection of individual rights were not relevant for the 30th proposed amendment to the Constitution, there would be other reasons to oppose it. The government will retain control of the inquiry process as long as government retains control of a majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The types of inquiries we will see will be either partisan or populist and are unlikely to enhance the scrutiny or oversight of government at a time that will be of use to those who matter: voters. This is because we will only see inquiries into government action after the government has been replaced by a new one.
This amendment gives the impression of reform and empowerment of the Oireachtas while delivering nothing. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Brendan Howlin (October 22nd) writes: “the Oireachtas should be able to inquire . . .” Indeed, let the Oireachtas inquire as much as it wants; when it has finished its inquiries, if the Oireachtas believes that someone should be investigated with the aim of establishing either civil liability or criminal conviction, then let the Oireachtas refer the matter to the courts for final judgment.
The separation of powers between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary has evolved over a long time for a good reason and has served the people well by setting clear limits to the powers of politicians – it is not unreasonable to suspect the competence and/or motives of anyone who wants to undermine this distinction. In other words, it is usually better for politicians to have less rather than more power. As it is, Ireland’s politicians have more than enough power in one of the most centralised democracies around – now the challenge is to get them to put their existing powers to better use. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I would gladly vote in favour of a salary increase for judges, if I thought that they might soon preside over the trial of even one criminally reckless banker, criminally negligent regulator, criminally complicit politician, criminally corner-cutting builder or criminally disingenuous bishop.
Not one of the myriad white-collar criminals who have ruined this country has yet appeared before a court, much less been convicted.
The Government tells us how extremely difficult it would be to get criminal convictions in these cases.
That we have seen people convicted of similar crimes in other jurisdictions suggests that Ireland lacks either the political will or the appropriate legislation to frame such trials.
Instead of creating extrajudicial mechanisms such as tribunals and Dáil committees to examine criminal practices, why not let the politicians pass more definitive and proscriptive legislation and let the justice system obtain convictions? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Where is the public debate? Where are the dissenting voices? Why are the electorate being treated like mushrooms, ie kept in the dark and fed....well you know the rest! Perhaps this is why we have the distraction of an utterly bland presidential race with the largest number of candidates in history with enough scandal or non-stories seeping out to keep the more important matters of the referendums off the front pages. – Yours, etc,