The way is clear, for the moment, for the investigation into Judge Brian Curtin to continue, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
The members of the Oireachtas, and of its committee investigating Judge Brian Curtin, will be relieved that their rights and duties in this affair have received such a ringing endorsement from the High Court. This follows a number of setbacks for Oireachtas committees, notably that established to investigate the shooting dead of John Carthy in Abbeylara.
Even the controversial issue of access of the committee to the unconstitutionally obtained evidence contained on the judge's computer was found to be constitutional in these circumstances, in the public interest.
It fell to Mr Justice Thomas Smyth to chart the much-cited "uncharted territory" of judicial impeachment. The judge had challenged the decision of the Oireachtas to set up a committee to inquire into how he came to be charged with possessing child pornography, in advance of the Oireachtas debating a motion to remove him from his position.
This was the first time in the history of the State that the Oireachtas had invoked the provision in the Constitution that allows it to remove a judge by passing a resolution in both Houses. Mr Justice Smyth said he attached great significance to this fact, and added: "This is a task not lightly to be undertaken."
When he gave his judgment yesterday he sought to find a balance between judicial independence and the rights of the Oireachtas.
Both derive from the Constitution, with Article 35.2 stating: "All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law." The Constitution also states that each House of the Oireachtas shall make its own rules and standing orders.
The judge was acquitted, on direction of the trial judge, of the charge of possessing child pornography in April last year. This arose from his finding that the warrant under which Judge Curtin's computer had been seized was out of date when his house was searched, in violation of his constitutional rights.
The Government then proceeded to put down a motion to remove him from office for "stated misbehaviour", as provided for under the Constitution, but adjourned the matter until a committee had collected all relevant evidence.
The committee was to hold its sessions in private, unless the judge requested otherwise. The committee started hearings and issued a number of orders, including one for the production of the judge's computer, in the hands of the Garda Síochána since its seizure.
Lawyers for Judge Curtin sought a judicial review both of the establishment of the committee and of its orders, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional and interfered with judicial independence.
They objected to the use of any information based on the contents of the computer, on the basis that this had been obtained unconstitutionally. They argued that Judge Curtin should be tried by the Houses of the Oireachtas instead of producing evidence to a committee.
At the heart of the judicial review proceedings was the extent to which the actions of the Oireachtas could be challenged in the courts. This had already been done in the case of the Abbeylara inquiry, when the Supreme Court found that the Oireachtas could not set up a committee that could make findings likely to impugn a citizen's good name.
However, under the Constitution the Oireachtas is given both the right and the duty of hearing a motion for the impeachment of a member of the judiciary, so this committee was fundamentally different from any other Oireachtas committee.
It was also expressly asked not to make any finding of fact or expressing any opinion. Its only function is to collect evidence. The focus of the attack, therefore, was on the way it was set up and its procedures.
Judge Curtin objected that no rules existed surrounding the admissibility of evidence, or how it would be evaluated. In rejecting this argument, Mr Justice Smyth said it was up to counsel for the judge to make their own arguments about the admissibility of evidence to the committee and, if they were rejected, to make them to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Judge Curtin's arguments about his right not to incriminate himself by producing the computer were also rejected by the judge. Mr Justice Smyth pointed out that this evidence might equally exculpate him if he could prove that any incriminating material derived from Trojans on the computer. He said that the judge was being given every opportunity to give his version of events in private.
Mr Justice Smyth stressed the duty of the Oireachtas in ensuring that the public could have confidence in the system of justice. The public had a right to have such confidence, he said, and this could only be assured if a member of the judiciary who had given reason for disquiet could be asked for an explanation.
He pointed out that guarantees of Judge Curtin's constitutional rights to fair procedure had been built into the decisions of the Oireachtas in setting up the committee, and were also guaranteed by Article 35.4.
However, it was in his definition of the role and duty of a judge that his judgment came across most clearly. Far from having the rights of a "super-citizen" as suggested by some of the submissions made on behalf of Judge Curtin, he had no more and no fewer rights than any citizen, according to Mr Justice Smyth.
He did, however, by virtue of the privilege of judicial appointment, have different and more onerous duties than an ordinary citizen.
A judge was set apart in many ways from the community as a whole. Judges had to recognise many limitations in their public and private lives.
Yesterday's judgment, if it is not appealed to the Supreme Court, will encourage the Oireachtas to proceed to a full inquiry into Judge Curtin's conduct, and makes any settlement with him less likely.