Sir, – The wording of the 30th Amendment to the Constitution Bill is a cause for alarm (September 15th).
Legislating against the outcome of the Abbeylara case is all well and good but the final section of the amendment has the potential to deprive individuals of the right to a fair, apolitical hearing and to an appeal.
In direct contrast to the relevant Joint Oireachtas Committee report, the amendment seems to create an “exclusionary zone” where the rules of procedural fairness need not be applied.
Trial by backbenchers and weakened judicial independence are surely not the “New Politics” and “New Republic” we voted for. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The wording of the “Abbeylara” referendum merits attention.
While flagged as merely allowing a parliamentary inquiry to make findings of fact that may impact on an individual’s good name, the amendment would go much further: it would allow a politically charged committee to make such findings without observing basic fair procedures.
There is much fluff and padding regarding “finding balance” in the explanatory memorandum and in Brendan Howlin’s public statements on the issue, but the basic fact remains unchanged. By passing this referendum, we would set aside many of the constitutional protections that would ordinarily aid a citizen whose conduct is being investigated by the State.
To what end? The notion that we have no other means of effectively investigating public misconduct is misconceived.
Leaving aside the beleaguered tribunal system, the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 has enabled very successful reports to be prepared on matters of public concern, such as clerical sex abuse in the Dublin archdiocese (the Murphy Report) and the Dean Lyons tragedy.
While few would deny that tribunal legal costs have soared out of proportion, this results from decisions by the tribunals themselves to allow legal representation of, and cross-examination by, every witness – a decision which is not legally or constitutionally required. – Yours, etc,