Judge Brian Curtin starts a last-ditch attempt today to prevent an Oireachtas committee from inquiring into how he came to be charged with possessing child pornography.
The Supreme Court will hear his appeal against a High Court decision last May that the setting up of the committee by the Oireachtas, and the rules under which it is to operate, is constitutional.
Judge Curtin was acquitted of possessing child pornography in April 2004, on direction of the trial judge. This followed his ruling that evidence found on Judge Curtin's computer could not be admitted, as the computer was seized under an out-of-date warrant and therefore in breach of his constitutional rights.
In the furore that followed, the Oireachtas voted to set up a committee to gather information on the circumstances leading to his being charged, which it would present to the Oireachtas.
It would carry out this work in private, unless the judge requested otherwise. It would make no findings of fact, presenting all collected information to the Oireachtas which would then decide on whether to impeach the judge.
Judge Curtin challenged this in the High Court. He claimed that he should be tried by the full Houses of the Oireachtas, rather than giving evidence to a committee.
He also claimed that the committee should not have access to evidence on his computer, which was unconstitutionally obtained.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth rejected his claims. He specifically rejected his claims that as a judge he had any special rights, saying he had no more and no fewer than any other citizen.
However, he did, by virtue of the privilege of judicial appointment, have different and more onerous duties than other citizens in relation to upholding the law and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.
He stressed that the Oireachtas had a duty to ensure that the public had confidence in the system of justice. This could only be assured if a member of the judiciary who had given reason for disquiet could be asked for an explanation.
He found that it had the right to set up the committee and set down the rules for it, under Article 35 of the Constitution which provided for the impeachment of a member of the judiciary.
Mr Justice Smyth rejected the claim that the computer should not be available, pointing out that it may contain evidence that could exculpate the judge, if he could prove that any incriminating material derived from "Trojans", small hidden programs which allow material to be placed on a computer without the owner's knowledge.
Judge Curtin's lawyers will concentrate on two points. First, that the committee must deliver up all the evidence it gathers without making any finding of fact. This means that any damaging material collected, which is explained by the judge, goes forward to the Oireachtas, along with the explanation.
Second, they will again seek to have any evidence on the computer excluded on the basis that it was obtained unconstitutionally.
The appeal, before the full seven-judge Supreme Court, is expected to take at least three days.