Sir, – Thirty years ago I was covering a High Court case for this newspaper. At the end of the case there was a technical part of the judgment I did not understand. After unbelievably lengthy negotiations, it was agreed that I could have a brief audience with the judge. He clarified the point that was worrying me. I was walking out the door when he called me back. He said, “Why don’t you chaps ever write about how badly paid judges are? Maybe you might think of writing it yourself?”
I was astounded, but refrained from mentioning the meagre rations I was on in The Irish Times . His Lordship is now in the great courthouse in the sky, but it is now clear to me that the more things change, the more they stay the same. – Yours, etc,
FRANK KILFEATHER,
Delgany,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Jo O’Donovan (March 1st) misses the point when he says the argument by the Chief Justice and the president of the High Court to the effect that the reduction in remuneration and expenses will produce a “second best” judiciary is a gratuitous insult to the thousands of health workers, gardaí, teachers, etc, who have endured pay cuts without any hope of redress.
With all due respect to our health workers, gardaí and teachers, I doubt many of them left much more lucrative professions to pursue a career in the public service. I can say with some confidence that the vast majority, if not all, judges of the High and Supreme Court voluntarily took substantial pay cuts upon leaving private practice for appointment to the bench. If cuts keep coming then the best barristers will stay at the bar and our judges will indeed be “second best”. It would be a grave danger for our legal system if in court the advocates were nearly always better lawyers than the judge. To highlight this issue is not an insult to members of the public service, but rather a statement made in their interest. A member of An Garda Síochána would not for example like to see defence counsel in a trial have a vastly greater knowledge of the criminal law than the presiding judge.
Also, Mr O’ Donovan takes umbrage with the title of “My Lord”, calling it proof of the existence of a stratum in our society whose self-assessed worth places them on a different plane to anyone else. By virtue of statutory instrument 196 of 2006, the proper mode of addressing a judge is to call them “judge”. Who made this rule? A committee consisting of three current Supreme Court judges. In fact I have seen former Chief Justice Murray correct barristers who call him or his fellow judges “My Lord” and ask that they be addressed simply as “judge”. – Yours, etc,
IBAR McCARTHY, BL
Law Library,
Four Courts,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Olivia O’Leary ("Government needs to call senior judges' bluff on pay", Opinion & Analysis, February 28th) writes that "maybe those who lead more modest lives would have a better understanding of what life is like for many citizens who come before their courts". I always thought that the essential attribute of a judge was that he or she had an extensive knowledge of the law which would be applied in resolving disputes between citizens, rather than knowing, for example, what type of supermarket the citizen frequented. By way of analogy, would Olivia prefer to attend a doctor who could deal effectively with her complaint without appearing to know how difficult life was for many persons, or attend one who was useless but engaged in a long conversation about inequalities in our society? – Yours, etc,
GERARD CLARKE,
Castlebrook,
Dundrum,
Dublin 16.