Curtin case – Judges must be held accountable

THE dilemma facing members of the Cabinet, as they meet today to consider the Judge Brian Curtin affair, involves a fundamental question of what action to take following the collapse of the pornography case against him and where to go from here?

Ironically, with the judiciary engulfed in yet another crisis, it appears the option most likely to be adopted by Government will see yet another judicial committee being set up to consider the future of the Circuit Court judge.

Another problem that demands resolution is what exactly happened in the Curtin case. People have a right to know why the DPP brought the case so far when legal opinion suggested it was going to collapse from the outset.

Explanations of garda failure to execute in time the warrant to search Judge Curtin’s house must also be brought into the public domain. Effectively, the trial collapsed because gardaí failed to use a valid warrant to search the house, thus rendering the evidence inadmissible. Both gardaí and the DPP have questions to answer.

For the Government to demand his resignation might be costly and would certainly leave a bitter taste in people’s mouths but it would be preferable to his continued presence on the bench. That would further incense public opinion already outraged by the inept performance of the State in this debacle.

A third option, that of impeachment, seems unrealistic because Judge Curtin is an innocent man in the eyes of the law following the collapse of his trial on a charge of child pornography possession.

Arguably, the scenario most likely to unfold will see three judges appointed to resolve this judicial quagmire. When a similar course was taken in the Philip Sheedy scandal, it led to the resignation of two High Court judges, Hugh O’Flaherty and Cyril Kelly.

Faced with an explosive scenario, the government of the day appointed the President of the High Court, the President of the Circuit Court and the Chief Justice to form a high powered judicial committee.

With members of the judiciary likely to be involved yet again in scrutinising yet another controversy surrounding yet another judge, the stark question that looms yet again is who judges the judges?

In the aftermath of the Sheedy debacle, there was broad acceptance of the need for an independent forum to oversee the behaviour of judges. There is now even greater demand for strict rules to govern the behaviour of the judiciary. Judges must be answerable for their actions.

There is no question of the independence of the judiciary, a vital plank of our democracy, being challenged. But nor should a situation be allowed to fester where public trust in the credibility of the judiciary is undermined. The Government must be prepared to face up to the thorny issue of judging the behaviour of members of the judiciary. Not even a scintilla of suspicion should hang over a judge.