The Oireachtas is entitled to have access to a computer seized by gardaí from the home of Circuit Court judge Brian Curtin, which may have been used to access child pornography, for the purpose of deciding whether the judge should be removed from office for "misbehaviour", lawyers for the State have argued before the Supreme Court.
The fact that the computer and other materials were seized in May 2002 on foot of a warrant that was invalidly executed, although validly granted, does not mean they are permanently immune from further seizure, Brian Murray SC argued.
It was of importance that this was a situation where gardaí involved in the search did not know they were infringing the judge's constitutional rights and were not acting in bad faith.
Aside from the search and the materials seized, there was independent information from the US recited in the motion for the judge's removal from office, Mr Murray added.
The motion noted information had been obtained by the US postal service on the names and credit and charge card details of persons suspected of accessing websites containing child pornography, including card details of a person stated to be Judge Curtin.
Mr Murray said this information suggested Judge Curtin was or had been in possession of a computer that may have been used to access child pornography.
The committee was entitled to seek the computer from Judge Curtin because it was his property. Judge Curtin had not to date sought the return of the computer from the Garda, in whose possession it remains.
In putting down a motion for removal of the judge and in appointing a select committee to inquire into his alleged misbehaviour, the Oireachtas was carrying out a procedure on behalf of the people to vindicate the integrity of the judiciary, Mr Murray said. It was a feature of this procedure that it took place in parliament.
Mr Murray was continuing submissions on behalf of the State on the third day of Judge Curtin's appeal before a seven-judge Supreme Court against a High Court ruling last May that the procedures put in place by the Oireachtas to inquire into his alleged misbehaviour were constitutional. The appeal centres on the construction of Article 35.4.1 of the Constitution which provides that a judge shall not be removed from office except for "stated misbehaviour" or "incapacity" and only after a resolution for removal is passed by the Oireachtas.
The appeal has heard a warrant was issued to search Judge Curtin's home in May 2002 and his computer and other materials were seized by gardaí.
Judge Curtin was later sent for trial on a charge of knowingly having child pornography but was acquitted by direction of a Circuit Criminal Court judge on April 23rd, 2004, because the search warrant issued to ground the search on his home was out of date.
A motion for the judge's removal from office was subsequently put before the Houses of the Oireachtas and has been adjourned pending the completion of an inquiry by a select committee into the alleged misbehaviour.
That inquiry has been on hold for some 18 months pending the outcome of the judge's legal challenge.
