[ad_1]
The meeting scheduled for Thursday between Supreme Court Justice Séamus Woulfe and Chief Justice Frank Clarke has been adjourned. It is the fourth time that a proposed meeting between the two men has been postponed at the request of Mr. Justice Woulfe.
The two were to discuss the consequences of Mr. Justice Woulfe’s attendance at the “Golfgate” dinner in Co Galway last August.
In a statement issued this afternoon on behalf of the Chief Justice, he said that he had received correspondence early Thursday that attached a “compelling medical report to the effect that he [Mr Justice Woulfe] it is not in a position to participate in the resolution process at this time. ”
The Supreme Court has been involved in an informal process to try to resolve the controversy caused by Mr. Justice Woulfe’s attendance at Clifden’s dinner.
Judge Clarke said it was necessary to cancel Thursday’s meeting. The proposed meeting for last Tuesday had been postponed at the request of Judge Woulfe. This is the fourth time a meeting has had to be postponed.
“The Chief Justice is committed to bringing the process to a conclusion as soon as possible and appropriate to do so.”
On Tuesday, the chief justice of the Supreme Court had said that if Thursday’s meeting to discuss the informal resolution of the dispute does not take place, “he will make alternative arrangements to convey his final views on the process to Mr. Justice Woulfe.”
The Supreme Court is believed to be using elements of the 2019 Judicial Council Act that have yet to be implemented, as a model for dealing with the crisis caused by Judge Woulfe’s attendance at the dinner.
The Law provides for the informal resolution of a complaint against a judge if the judge agrees, and a Judicial Conduct Committee, provided for by law, agrees that the matter be resolved in this way.
The head of the court in question cannot appoint more than three of his colleagues to resolve the matter informally.
When a complaint is resolved through informal means, a report to that effect is presented to the scheduled Judicial Conduct Committee.
If a complaint has not been resolved by informal means, then a report to that effect is presented to the committee, stating the reasons.
Under provisions of the law that have not yet been implemented, a formal investigation into a complaint may be referred to an investigation panel, which may hold a hearing which, under certain circumstances, could be held in public.
If a complaint is confirmed, a report is sent to the committee to that effect, and advice can be given to a judge, recommended to attend a course or seek specific training, or be reprimanded.
As none of these provisions is yet in force, they are not available to deal with the current crisis.
Justice Woulfe was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice in July, having previously served as Attorney General. You still have to participate in a court session.
Confidence in the judge has been damaged by his attendance at Clifden’s dinner amid a pandemic, but also by his comments recorded in the transcript of his interview with former Chief Justice Susan Denham, who was asked to report to the Supreme Court. Court on whether Mr. Judge Woulfe should have attended the so-called Golfgate dinner.
His answer was no. But he also said it would be unfair and disproportionate to ask the judge to resign and recommended an informal resolution of the matter.
He attached a transcript of his interview with the newly appointed judge as an appendix to his report. When the Judicial Council board published the appendix on October 2, it dealt a further blow to confidence in Judge Woulfe.
[ad_2]