Security was the primary concern of judges supporting the withholding of their identities when releasing details of their expenses under Freedom of Information legislation, according to a review by Information Commissioner Peter Tyndall.
Mr Tyndall also said Garda Commissioner Noírín O'Sullivan wrote a letter in support of a Courts Service decision to withhold judges' names.
The letter was forwarded to Mr Tyndall by president of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns.
Groundbreaking decision
In a groundbreaking decision, Mr Tyndall ruled the Courts Service was not justified in withholding the names of judges in a Freedom of Information application requesting details of their expenses made by
The Irish Times
.
In her letter, Ms O’Sullivan said the release of any information that “could potentially increase public disquiet” such as on the personal circumstances of judges was “of concern to An Garda Síochána”. She said “it would be a serious concern” if the information “leads to travel arrangements, itineraries and absences from home of judges becoming known”, Mr Tyndall’s review said.
She also said it could “lead to further investigations and scrutiny” and “this attention would cause concern from a security perspective”.
The Courts Service argued revealing judges’ names could adversely affect the security of the State, Mr Tyndall said.
The service said judges had a central role in protecting the security of the State and the release of the names “could put judges or their families at risk”, which “might compromise judicial independence” and “thereby could affect the security of the State”.
Mr Tyndall said most judges who made submissions cited this risk as the primary argument for withholding details of their names.
But, he said, the identities of judges sitting in a number of courts could already be discerned from the publicly available legal diary and this was not considered an undue risk.
He also noted that since 2009, expenses paid to high court judges and above in the UK had been published.
Mr Tyndall highlighted one judge’s concern that information could be published “out of context” or in a “vexatious” manner and might “diminish him or her in the eyes of the public” and “current convention” would prevent him or her from responding.
Mr Tyndall said the possibility of unjust attack as a reason not to disclose information related to the spending of public money was not sufficient grounds for refusing to disclose the identities of judges.
He also said while individual judges might not be able to respond, the Courts Service could respond to criticism.
