TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Tuesday 21 May, 2013

Government to block “bizarre proposal” restricting lobbying of judges

The government is to vote against John Crown’s bill which would require TDs and Senators to declare any contact with judges.

John Crown will today introduce a bill which requires TDs and Senators to inform the Minister for Justice if they try to lobby the judiciary.
John Crown will today introduce a bill which requires TDs and Senators to inform the Minister for Justice if they try to lobby the judiciary.
Image: Eamonn Farrell/Photocall Ireland

Updated, 11.16

THE GOVERNMENT is to block a bill being brought to the Seanad today which would require TDs and Senators to inform the Minister for Justice of any attempt they make to lobby the judiciary – describing the proposal as “bizarre”.

The bill is being introduced by NUI senator Prof John Crown today, but the government parties have already agreed to vote against the motion.

A Department of Justice spokeswoman this morning the bill would have the opposite effect to its intended aim – to stop parliamentarians from trying to lobby the judiciary in legal matters.

The spokeswoman said the bill would provide a mechanism for communications to be made to the DPP, and to individual judges, concerning criminal offences – as long as they were reported to the Minister for Justice at the time.

Such communications, the spokeswoman added, would be a “gross violation” of the separation of powers. As a result, the government was opposing Crown’s “bizarre proposal”.

Crown, however, believes the government’s motives are more ulterior.

“The government was thinking of going along with the bill, but when they considered the impact on how the business of politics is done in this country, they decided otherwise,” he said.

Crown added that he had not been approached by the government parties with any suggested amendments to the bill, though he would be happy to accept input in that regard.

He explained that his original hopes had been to introduce a bill which placed an outright ban on lobbying of the judiciary by TDs and Senators, but he had been advised that doing so would pose constitutional problems regarding freedom of speech.

It is understood that the bill had been slated for discussion yesterday, to allow for the attendance of justice minister Alan Shatter.

Shatter is unlikely to attend today’s debates on the bill, as he is due in the Dáil – taking ministerial questions as the Minister for Defence – while the debates on the bill will get underway.

Read next:

Comments (10 Comments)

  • are politicians not already banned from lobbying judges

    Reply
  • Seeing the government elect their friends to the judicary, even if the bill was passed, they can still discuss matters in an informal way so the bill is reduntant either way.
    Far better to have judges elected by an impartial body, rather than as carol coulter pointed out in the times this week, solictors getting high legal office because of them coming to the attention of the solicitors disciplinary tribunal!

    Reply
  • TD’s and Senators should be obliged to undergo a Garda back ground check.

    Reply
  • Aah that got mangled – meant to say:

    ‘are you suggesting that someone from a ‘bad home’ should be punished for a single mistake?’

    Reply
  • I presume it’s the Minister for Justice?

    “The spokeswoman said the bill would provide a mechanism for communications to be made to the DPP, and to individual judges, concerning criminal offences – as long as they were reported to the Minister for Finance at the time.”

    Reply
  • There is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with a TD, teacher, priest, employer, community activist etc writing a short character reference on behalf of a convicted person whom they know (stating how they know them) in order that the defence team can rely on it in open court, as part of their job to mitigate sentence (it happens every day a court sits). The ignorance and media fuss on this issue is bewildering. In that context Sen. Crowne’s bill does appear bizarre.

    Reply
    • I would agree, there’s nothing wrong if somebody wanted to write a character reference in order that the defence team can rely on it in open court…

      But that’s not at all what this is about.

      Say you get elected as a TD. You know a family in your constituency, their son got into trouble. He’s a good lad, but he made a mistake. You decide that the evidence is stacked against him so you should explain this to a judge.

      If you decide to telephone the judge, under Sen. Crowne’s proposed legislation, you would have to report that to the Minister for Justice.

      Now, I’d be of the opinion that if you were a TD, you shouldn’t be interfering with the Justice system at all, given how you’d have taken an oath to uphold the constitution that clearly provides for a tripartite separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.

      In my opinion, I would disagree with the appraisal that an outright ban on lobbying the judiciary by elected officials threatens our freedom of speech, as our constitution states that it is subject to “public order”.

      However, I’m not a big fan of creating such superfluous legislation. I’d say, just enforce the constitution.

      But wait, how will we enforce legislation in the digital age, when a TD communicating with a judge is so easy?
      Maybe somebody should draft a bill that requires the Judiciary to report all and any lobbying on the part of the Legislature and the Executive.

      Reply
  • Sometimes there are legitimate needs for a TD to discuss a case with a judge. What is the person is from a good home and has gotten in to trouble, should they be punished for one mistake? Think about it. Justice needs to be tempered at times. Should someone with potential to contribute be denied the chance to make this a better society.

    Reply
    • Your response raises an awful lot a questions for me.

      What is a ‘good home’? Who gets to define it? If you start from the premise that someone from a ‘good home’ should not be punished for one mistake, are you suggesting that should someone from a ‘bad home’ should be punishment if they make a single mistake? What is a ‘bad home’? Who gets to define that? Are we to be defined by the homes from which we came? Is this fair?

      When is a crime a ‘mistake’ – does this depend on the nature of the home you come from or the nature of the event?

      Who are the people who have no potential to contribute to this society?

      Like I say, a lot of questions.

      Reply
    • Very well said Katherine. Unfortunately Colin illustrates a certain warped mindset that exists with respect to our justice system.

      Reply

Add New Comment