Disciplinary body needed for judges, says DPP
DPP James Hamilton said the body could be largely made up of and run by judges themselves but it should have some outside members as well.
Such a “judicial council” has been promised by the Government for years and legislation setting out its functions is at draft stage but in its absence, the only sanction that can be imposed on a judge is removal from office — a process that requires the formal approval of both the Dáil and the Seanad.
The process was begun for the first time in the case of Judge Brian Curtin in 2004 after he was charged with possession of child pornography but he resigned before it was complete.
Mr Hamilton said few complaints would warrant such drastic action and a mechanism was needed to deal with the minor issues that were more likely to arise.
“Most western countries do have some sort of system whereby judges themselves would have a body responsible for looking after internal matters and dealing with minor complaints,” he said.
“For example, if somebody alleges that a judge was rude, it’s not a dismissal offence.”
If a judge was repeatedly late for hearings or treated people badly in court, they could also be brought before such a body he said.
Mr Hamilton made his remarks at a seminar on accountability in the public sector hosted by the Mason, Hayes & Curran law firm. He voiced concern about the impact of budget cuts on the operation of his office, saying he had no spare capacity to trim.
“It’s fairly easy to find cuts in an inefficient body but that’s not us,” he said.
Mr Hamilton also answered recent criticisms by solicitor James MacGuill, made shortly before his term as president of the Law Society ended, over the DPP’s move to end the traditional secrecy around his decisions in cases where victims are left baffled as to why a chief suspect was not charged or prosecutions were abandoned.
Mr MacGuill expressed concern that suspects and other people involved in cases would have their reputations damaged without being convicted if the DPP was to divulge the reasons behind his decisions.
Mr Hamilton said he had regard for the rights of all involved. “We act on behalf of the people as a whole and not on behalf of victims or injured parties,” he said.
