[ad_1]
The time may be coming for politicians to get involved in the removal of Justice Séamus Woulfe from the Supreme Court.
Following the publication on Monday of the extraordinary correspondence between the judge and Chief Justice Frank Clarke, it is clear that the attempt at an “informal resolution” of the crisis has come to a standstill.
The Chief Justice has taken the extraordinary step of asking the last person appointed by his court to resign and then published the fact, and the appointee responded by saying that he does not intend to resign.
Furthermore, it now seems clear that the Chief Justice and the other members of the Supreme Court are of the view that the core of the crisis facing the judiciary is the poor judgment of Judge Woulfe.
It’s hard to see how serious and legitimate concerns about that matter can be resolved by a temporary loss of income or a period of time in Coventry.
‘Cumulative effect’
“It is the cumulative effect of this serious controversy that I have to consider,” said the Chief Justice, in connection with his decision to suggest that his colleague resign.
The many jarring comments made by Judge Woulfe during his interview with Judge Susan Denham on September 8, as revealed in the transcript subsequently released, always had the flavor of a rift that would be nearly impossible to repair.
The comments created a disturbing sense of a gulf between what was on the minds of most people who saw the crisis over the judge’s attendance at the Oireachtas golf dinner in Clifden last August, and what was on the Judge Woulfe’s mind.
The meeting held in the Four Courts on October 2 between Mr. Justice Woulfe and three senior Justices – Donal O’Donnell, Iseult O’Malley and George Birmingham – was arranged, the Chief Justice said in now published correspondence, due to a concern “that you did not appreciate the seriousness of the matter.”
Judge Woulfe, the correspondence clarifies, has been repeatedly criticized for the fact that the dealings he has had with the court since the end of Denham’s review were not for the purpose of bargaining, but rather so that he could hear harsh criticism. . words that his companions felt necessary to say to him.
“Their accounts and arguments have been largely aired” in both Denham’s review and subsequent “extensive correspondence,” the Chief Justice told Justice Woulfe in response to the judge’s complaint about the lack of negotiation. .
‘Benign sight’
The meeting with the three judges was held so that the newest member of the court could hear the opinions of his colleagues, said the Chief Justice. “The real burden of his complaint appears to be that his colleagues have been unwilling to share his benign view of all the issues involved here.”
It is appalling to have such an obvious gulf between a new Supreme Court appointee and the rest of the court, presented in such egregious detail.
The split is not about the wisdom or not of Mr. Justice Woulfe’s attendance at a golf dinner in the middle of a public health emergency, but rather about how a person who occupies one of the most important judicial functions in the State, you have dealt with the result. controversy.
Even friends and sympathizers of Mr. Judge Woulfe privately agree that he has repeatedly shown poor judgment. And more evidence of bad judgment and discordant propositions is contained in the correspondence that has now been published.
The Chief Justice said he felt he had no alternative but to express his personal opinion that Judge Woulfe should resign, in circumstances where the judge “while suggesting that he would apologize and amend” maintained “that he did little wrong. “.
A similar point emerges from the former attorney general’s response to criticism for his inaccurate comments during the Denham interview. Judge Woulfe said he had thought the interview was private and would not have said what he said had he known his comments were going to be published.
Upper court
It is not the kind of defense you really want to hear from someone who has been chosen by the government for appointment to the state’s highest court.
It is the unanimous opinion of all members of the court that Mr. Justice Woulfe has been the cause of “very significant and irreparable damage” to the court, the Chief Justice said in correspondence.
The fact that Judge Woulfe remains a member of the court and receives a salary of more than 200,000 euros a year, when public confidence in him has been so damaged, cannot be good for the administration of justice.
He has been treated roughly, though not necessarily unfairly, by his judicial colleagues. But what has been done to date has not solved the problem.
Now perhaps the Oireachta, and the government that nominated Judge Woulfe, should consider whether the time has come to get involved.
[ad_2]