[ad_1]
Former Attorney General Séamus Woulfe is holding onto his position on the Supreme Court.
In a defiant and lengthy letter to Chief Justice Frank Clarke, he laid out in considerable detail why he doesn’t think his attendance at the ‘Golfgate’ dinner and his subsequent handling of the controversy is a matter of resignation.
Judge Clarke has no powers to remove Judge Woulfe, but told him in a meeting last Thursday and in a later letter the same day that it was his “personal opinion” that the judge should go, given what he described as the “harm irreparable”. caused by controversy.
Judge Woulfe (58) was only appointed in July and has yet to hear a case in the highest court in the country.
Here are some of the key points he made in defending his position:
:: Full acceptance of Denham’s conclusions
Judge Woulfe said he would like to again apologize for accepting the invitation and attending the Oireachtas Golf Society dinner and that he fully accepted the opinions, reasons and recommendations set forth in a report by former Chief Justice Susan Denham.
His report said that he should not have attended, but that he had not violated the law and the requests to resign were disproportionate.
“As a newly appointed Supreme Court judge, my poorly judged acceptance of the invitation and subsequent attendance at the dinner caused offense and injury to the public and damage to the court and this is a matter of deep regret to me. —Said Judge Woulfe.
:: Willing to accept sanctions less than resignation
The Chief Justice outlined a series of sanctions he proposed for Judge Woulfe before moving on to express his personal opinion that the judge should resign.
In response, Judge Woulfe accepted lesser penalties, a reprimand, not being assigned to cases until February 2021, and resigning or reimbursing his salary for three months.
But his acceptance of a reprimand seemed less than enthusiastic.
“While I believe it is based on a misunderstanding that I will address later,” he wrote, “I would accept the reprimand if it would ensure resolution of this matter.”
Judge Woulfe said he proposed offering his salary for the three months, around 69,000 euros before taxes, to a charity. “I think it is unprecedented for any judge or, recognizing the distinction, for any public servant in the history of the State,” he said.
Justice Woulfe also said he would be “willing” to serve as a Supreme Court justice for the three-month period to help with the shortage of judges or the backlog of cases.
:: The rules of perception that were mocked are “incorrect”
In his letter to Mr. Justice Woulfe, the Chief Justice said: “A judge should not attend any event that is organized in contravention of the law or where there may be a reasonable public perception that this is so.”
In response, Judge Woulfe said he had verified that the event, which took place on August 19 in Clifden, complied with Covid regulations and guidelines and that the perception that he had deliberately circumvented them was “incorrect.”
“As involuntary as it may be, this perception has negatively affected the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular. I am very sorry for that and my misjudgment identified by Judge Denham, ”he wrote.
“My determination now is to work to assist and cooperate with the Supreme Court in whatever way I can to remedy this matter to the extent possible.”
:: The opinion of the President of the Supreme Court ‘is not correct’
Judge Clarke expressed the opinion that the organization of the dinner “did not meet the objective of the regulation, which was to prevent large numbers of people from mixing at social events.” He said Judge Woulfe had focused on narrow and technical issues in Denham’s review and there was “a perception that legal technicalities outweigh public health.”
Responding, Judge Woulfe said: “With the utmost respect, this does not correctly describe the event or the government’s objectives at the time.
“In July and August it appeared that the Covid pandemic was under control in Ireland and with a view to reopening the economy, the Government accelerated the planned gradual relaxation of Covid restrictions.”
He insisted that the government’s public policy statements at the time were to encourage people to resume attending social events within certain limits. At that time, a limit of 50 people was set for indoor events.
He continued insisting that the event, which was attended by 81 people, met the objectives of the regulations and guidelines since “two dinners were held in two separate rooms with only 45 people in the room where I was.”
“Both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s directives were complied with,” he said.
“It’s not about being legalistic or technical about it.”
Judge Woulfe also said he regretted whether it appeared that he had focused on “technical and limited issues.”
He said he hadn’t tried to.
:: Unknown of the announcement of new rules
The President of the Supreme Court referred to a decision announced by the Government on August 18, which was aimed at reducing the number allowed at an indoor social event to six people.
Justice Woulfe said he agreed with the Supreme Court Chief Justice’s opinion that while the change did not yet have the force of law, justices should nevertheless exercise a reasonable level of vigilance to comply with such an announcement.
“I was unaware that the Cabinet had made such an announcement the night before and was completely unaware of any proposed ‘rule of six’ when I attended the dinner. Therefore, when you say that I did not comply with the principle that judges must comply with such government guidelines, even if it is not a matter of law, I do not think it is fair to criticize me saying that I did not adhere to such guidelines in circumstances where I just wasn’t aware of the six-person rule. ”
:: Judicial independence
Justice Woulfe said the fact that the Chief Justice had expressed a personal opinion that he should resign was “something of the utmost seriousness that I have to consider and reflect on.”
But he said this reflection was “not only from my own perspective, but from the perspective of the institution of the judiciary and the importance of the independence of each individual member of the judiciary. He said that he had to consider, in particular, whether he should resign to avoid harm or further harm to the judiciary.
But he said it also “had to consider the circumstances under which a judge should resign under pressure from a judge or judges” and the implications that a resignation would have in such circumstances for the independence of individual judges.
“As you can imagine, I have thought deeply about this and received extensive advice from various people,” he said.
“I have come to the conclusion that I should not resign.”
Irish independent
[ad_2]