# Referendum on reducing judges pay.



## RMCF (15 Oct 2011)

Probably the most pointless referendum ever?

Lets be honest, other than judges themselves, those aspiring to become a judge, their partners, children, siblings etc, who is going to vote *against *this change?


----------



## orka (15 Oct 2011)

I'm thinking about it.  It's important that judges can be truly impartial and independent.  It might not happen today or tomorrow but I wouldn't like to see a situation where a government wanted a certain judicial outcome and held the threat of impacting judicial pay if they didn't get the outcome.  

Judges typically give up quite lucrative legal careers which I think they are not allowed to return to.  If they are unsure if the goalposts will be moved once they make the irrevocable decision, then they may choose not to become judges or wait until they are older and more sure of their personal financial position.  I know there isn't much sympathy for them but a lot of judges have been impacted by poor financial decisions and I think it is particularly unfair that they are in a position now where they CANNOT return to private legal practice.

And it is worth bearing in mind that something like 80% of judges are voluntarily paying the public sector levy.


----------



## micmclo (15 Oct 2011)

Separation of powers is important

Otherwise Bertie could have started to hassle the Mahon Tribunal as an example. 

As it is the cabinet with a majority can force through pretty much anything they want, the President and the Senate can't stop them. And they appoint the Attorney General who will draft it in such a way to get it passed. 

The Taoiseach has too much power as it is and the judges have to be kept seperate from this as a check on them

It's a real populist move, it's saves very litte but stirs up the anger if you don't read up about it

I'd be voting no on the Dáil committees too


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2011)

micmclo said:


> Separation of powers is important
> 
> Otherwise Bertie could have started to hassle the Mahon Tribunal as an example.
> 
> ...


I'll probably do the same.


----------



## michaelm (18 Oct 2011)

RMCF said:


> Probably the most pointless referendum ever?


Yes.  A waste of time and money.  And based on suspect advice from the AG.  Article 35.5 currently states "The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.".  This was intended to protect individual judges not the judges pay-scale.  Judges pay should have been reduced and it would have been time enough holding a referendum in the event that a challenge, which wouldn't have happened, was successful in the Supreme Court.  The other option would have been to freeze judges pay until such a time as it fell back (in real terms, due to inflation) to the relative level the government wanted.  Under the new amendment we will only be able to cut judges pay in the context of wider public service cuts; this is, IMO, more restrictive that the current situation.





RMCF said:


> Lets be honest, other than judges themselves, those aspiring to become a judge, their partners, children, siblings etc, who is going to vote *against *this change?


Me (although I did once aspire to become Judge Dredd).  But then I tend to vote No in referenda (sorry it's referendums now, right?).  I'll be voting No to the proposed amendment giving the Oireachtas expended powers of inquisition too. However, I expect both referenda to be carried, as people are generally compliant and trusting of authority.


----------



## huskerdu (18 Oct 2011)

I am voting yes, and I am insulted you think it's because I am compliant and trusting of authority. 

The independence of the judiciary is vital. BUT, does anyone really think that this  independence will be affected by the judges having the pay the public service pension levy, like all the rest of the public service.

The wordng of the amendment clearly states that judges pay can only be 
reduced in line with other public servants. 

The judical pension is the most lucrative pension in the public service, as they can get a full pension after 15 years of service. 

The country cant afford this anymore and they are being asked to contribute a tiny amount of money out of their huge earnings towards this pension.

The effect of the levy on their standard of living will hardly be noticed compared to the effect it is having on civil servants on low levels of pay, who dont have a choice but to pay it. 

I personally think that the fact that 20% of them are refusing to pay this levy means that they are greedy and completely out of touch with the citizens that they are supposed to be serving. 

To use the fact that we pay barristers an obscene amount of money as a reason why the judges should not be paying the levy is beyond me.


----------



## michaelm (18 Oct 2011)

huskerdu said:


> I am voting yes, and I am insulted you think it's because I am compliant and trusting of authority.


Hardly.





huskerdu said:


> The independence of the judiciary is vital. BUT, does anyone really think that this  independence will be affected by the judges having the pay the public service pension levy, like all the rest of the public service.


I don't.  I'm opposed to the levy in general however see no reason why judges should be exempted.  The government should apply the levy, freeze current judges pay for a few years and introduce a reduced pay-scale for new entrants.  The referendum is unnecessary tinkering.


----------



## DB74 (18 Oct 2011)

michaelm said:


> I'm opposed to the levy in general however see no reason why judges should be exempted.



Why are you voting no then?

You stated above that you think the govt should apply the levy and then hold a referendum if a judge ever takes them to court over it.

Now we don't need to wait for a costly court case. We have the referendum, which won't cost too much because it's being lumped in with another referendum and an election.

It's win-win


----------



## michaelm (18 Oct 2011)

DB74 said:


> Why are you voting no then?


In my view it is unnecessary, as pay could have been reduced in any case, and it narrows the context in which judges pay can be reduced.  Also, cutting judges pay won't make any difference to anything.  I'm opposed to unnecessary tinkering with the Constitution.


----------



## NOAH (18 Oct 2011)

How could pay have been reduced?  I am lost there.  After watching part of the frontline last night I was appalled. The scenario was,  people were awarded compensation, the person or persons  represnenting them took money from the award as a fee but they were already paid by the state.  Now to my way of thinking that is theft but what was the outcome,  money was paid back and that was it.  Carry on regardless.  And no names could be named.

We have a legal system that is scary and it could be as bad elsewhere in the world but this is our country.   Program did say we have a legal profession with the highest fees in the WORLD!!  And we are supposed to be on our knees. Another example, some part of the legal profession had fees of €5k  a day!! and had agreed to reduce that to,  in face of the recession, €4k a day!!!!  We live in a different world but unfortunately it is our money that keeps these people in a nice style of comfort.  Why don't the IMF step in and knock these on the head?  Forget about a vote, that's just a smokescreen. 

When we heard about all the wheezes in Greece we went  Wow! but when the same is happeing here on our doorstep we ... hardly a peep.  One would think with 7 advisers our leader could dream up a good wheeze to get proper pay scales to reflect the dire state we are in...  oh oh forgot he has breached the pay guidelines himself.  Back to square one.

A great little country

noah


----------



## Yorrick (18 Oct 2011)

The Judges pay amendment is a distraction. It is the other one the Governement want to slip through on the quiet. Who wants to be judged by Lowry, Healy Rae and Co ?
If I want to be tried I want it before a jury of citizens not a jury of gombeen men


----------



## Husker (18 Oct 2011)

Unfortunately, this is probably the only debate on these referenda that you will be party to.  Both will be passed by a huge majority because they haven't been discussed like this.


----------



## Delboy (18 Oct 2011)

orka said:


> I'm thinking about it.  It's important that judges can be truly impartial and independent.  It might not happen today or tomorrow but I wouldn't like to see a situation where a government wanted a certain judicial outcome and held the threat of impacting judicial pay if they didn't get the outcome.



Independent!!! Judges!!!  your joking, surely?
The main reason they get appointed in the 1st place is because they're knee deep with the Govt. of the day...they lobby their political party contacts for these top roles, work behind the scenes for years etc
See the 2 appointed this week....1 was a former member of the Workers Party with Gilmore and had represented him in some legal cases also.

So I laugh when I hear about this 'independence', and nearly exploded last night listening to them whine on the Frontline. There was'nt too much said from the head of their self-governing body last night, Ken whats his name, when that survivor of child abuse brought up the over charging. As said above, he briefly mentioned that some complaints of overcharging were proven and the money was handed back...and thats that! No fines, naming and shaming and most importantly, no legal action brought against them...all kept in house- after all, they know best. No need to go to outsiders such as the Gardai!

The legal profession is the last traditional power house in this country still to be toppled and brought down to earth with the Catholic Church, Politicians, Gardai etc...the sooner the better in my opinion. 
I'll be voting YES by the way lol


----------



## horusd (19 Oct 2011)

+1 Delboy. I will be voting yes too. The isue of independence is a complete red herring. In any event, judges aren't even interviewed for the job, simply appointed by the gov't of the day. There should be a completely independent panel to appoint,vet and remove judges.


----------



## Purple (19 Oct 2011)

horusd said:


> There should be a completely independent panel to appoint,vet and remove judges.



Who should appoint the independent panel?


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2011)

horusd said:


> There should be a completely independent panel to appoint,vet and remove judges.



Yes, all our existing quangos are wonderful models of complete independence from politics. So much so that we need more of them. Just as long as they're completely independent, mind.


----------



## Delboy (19 Oct 2011)

Purple said:


> Who should appoint the independent panel?



Not sure how they do it in the USA across the board, but don't judges at some levels have to get elected by the general public? Same as Sheriffs in some towns.
That'd keep them on their toes and lower the chances of light sentencing!!!


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2011)

Yes the directly-elected local sheriffs and judges in the USA do a great job. The jails are packed to bursting point with, at any given time, one out of 18 men, and one in 11  African-Americans, either in jail or on probation. We really need to follow their example.


----------



## Delboy (19 Oct 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Yes the directly-elected local sheriffs and judges in the USA do a great job. The jails are packed to bursting point with, at any given time, one out of 18 men, and one in 11  African-Americans, either in jail or on probation. We really need to follow their example.



here, here. I totally agree


----------



## Yorrick (19 Oct 2011)

Sounds good to me


----------



## DB74 (19 Oct 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Yes the directly-elected local sheriffs and judges in the USA do a great job. The jails are packed to bursting point with, at any given time, *one out of 18 men*, and one in 11  African-Americans, either in jail or on probation. We really need to follow their example.



"Innocent" men or "Guilty" men

I don't have a problem with convicted criminals serving time in prison


----------



## T McGibney (19 Oct 2011)

The definition of 'guilty' or 'innocent' is always a moveable feast, especially when elements within the judicial system are designed to pander to base populism.


----------



## DB74 (19 Oct 2011)

It might do some of the judiciary good to remember who they are supposed to serve

A lot of judges seem to be massively out-of-touch when it comes to sentencing issues.


----------



## horusd (19 Oct 2011)

Okay, quango's are bad, but I'm not suggesting that. A selection panel across  a range of relevant disciplines and interests shouldn't  be impossible, we do it in other fields. I don't like the idea of electing Judges or State prosecuters a la USA, it's too  open  to abuse.


----------



## Purple (19 Oct 2011)

horusd said:


> Okay, quango's are bad, but I'm not suggesting that. A selection panel across  a range of relevant disciplines and interests shouldn't  be impossible, we do it in other fields. I don't like the idea of electing Judges or State prosecuters a la USA, it's too  open  to abuse.


 Again, who selects/appoints the panel?


----------



## horusd (19 Oct 2011)

Purple said:


> Again, who selects/appoints the panel?



LRCin conjunction with others perhaps. It will require some panelists with legal backgrounds given the nature of the task.

No system for selction is entirely without the potential for abuse or influence, which I assume is your point. But that shouldn't prevent an attempt ot improve the current system which is entirely unsatisfactory.


----------



## Purple (19 Oct 2011)

My point is that however big a bunch of gobdaws our TD's and government are at least we know who they are and can kick them out at election time. Unelected people appointing unelected judges is one step too far away from accountable for my liking.


----------



## horusd (19 Oct 2011)

The independence of the judicary from political interfeence, nd a facility to remove judges was what I was suggesting. Judges on the Supreme Court aren't themselves free from an allegation of bias, and are the highest authority in the state. 

There should be a means to ensure that these appointments, and the regulation of these people is as much above suspicion as possible, and as free from poltical interference or preference as possible. What we have now is the probably worst possible scenario.


----------



## Delboy (20 Oct 2011)

Purple said:


> My point is that however big a bunch of gobdaws our TD's and government are at least we know who they are and can kick them out at election time. Unelected people appointing unelected judges is one step too far away from accountable for my liking.



I find the biggest gobdaws get back in every time...see Kerry, Tipperary etc!!! The politically enlightened (as oppossed to the 'I'll vote for him as he tarred my drive way' brigade) in this country are in a minority unfortunately. And its the politicians who currently rule the roost on judicial appointments.

Have directly elected Judges...it may see an end to sentencing like this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-...-says-hell-never-forgive-himself-2909805.html
4 years after drinking 9 pints and 5 brandys!


----------



## DB74 (20 Oct 2011)

Delboy said:


> 4 years after drinking 9 pints and 5 brandys!



One of those years was suspended too


----------



## T McGibney (20 Oct 2011)

Delboy said:


> I find the biggest gobdaws get back in every time...see Kerry, Tipperary etc!!!



Dublin Central - the biggest parish pump of them all ?


----------



## Delboy (20 Oct 2011)

T McGibney said:


> Dublin Central - the biggest parish pump of them all ?




I don't disagree....but I don't think city dwellers can be called gobdaws as thats a country term...whats the urban equivalent


----------

