Sir, – It is with great regret that I read Éamon McEnry’s comments regarding the referendum on judges’ pay (June 24th). His assertion that there is something “perverse” about this move by the Oireachtas is both nonsensical and palpably wrong.
He is right to draw attention to the separation of powers. A concept first theorised by some of the top political and legal thinkers of the Enlightenment period. John Locke, Montesquieu and Cesare Beccaria among them. It was later adopted, fostered and moulded by many of the original architects of the United States of America following the war of independence, as well as many of the liberal philosophers that were to follow.
However it is essential to note that the main purpose of this now widely accepted constitutional requirement, is to create a system of checks and balances, and to ensure that power does not become too concentrated, in a representative democracy. That is to say a system of democracy where power is executed by elected representatives on behalf of the people. In a direct democracy, however, power would be wielded and executed by the people on their own behalf and there should be no need for such a provision. To some extent the referendum mechanism can be considered a minor form of direct democracy.
It must also be remembered that neither the executive nor the legislature has the power to interfere with judicial remuneration under the Constitution. Only the citizens of this nation can do so and their ability to make rational decisions should not be overlooked.
It is about time that the judiciary recognised that it is an honour to sit on the bench and those that whinge or refuse to forego a minor percentage of their large entitlements, should simply resign their position (without severance). Any judge influenced by the extent of their pay package, is clearly and explicitly incapable of impartial and objective decision making. – Yours, etc.
Sir, – I am intrigued by one aspect of the referendum on judges’ pay due in the autumn.
If the amendment is carried and then its constitutionality challenged in the courts, who will hear the case? No judge of the Supreme Court could possibly preside over a case in which he/she would have a serious vested interest ie a pay cut of almost €60,000. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – Yours, etc,