Sir, – The Government is posing two propositions in the court of appeal referendum, but it is not allowing the electorate to vote separately on each of them. It wants to establish a court of appeal and it wants to allow each Supreme Court justice hearing a constitutional case to publish his, or her, opinion.
The second proposition would eliminate the Article in the Constitution which excludes the possibility of each justice publishing a separate opinion in relation to the constitutional review of a law. There are vital safeguards in the existing procedure which have secured the independence, prestige and authority of the court. Decisions have been clear, final and unambiguous, based on solid legal principles and public understanding.
The proposed change could have serious unintended consequences if the personality and personal ambition of each justice were to overshadow the decision being made. Public confusion could ensue and the spectacle of deep disagreement being aired in public could undermine public confidence in the entire court system. Individual opinions about the Constitution could also be hijacked by powerful vested interests. We might even see the spectacle of judicial decisions being subsequently measured in opinion polls, reducing the stature of Supreme Court deliberations to that of a bland popularity contest.
Opinion polls indicate that public understanding of the underlying issues in the court of appeal referendum is appallingly low. This is not surprising as the Government has failed to define a clear purpose for changing the “one judgement rule”. But it also reflects very badly on the capacity of the Referendum Commission to educate the public.
We could well rue the day if personalised judicial decisions about the interpretation of the Constitution were to be reduced to the status of a children’s beauty pageant. – Yours, etc,
MYLES DUFFY,
Bellevue Avenue,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.