asked the Minister for Justice why the Government called for the resignation of District Justice Lennon notwithstanding the findings of a High Court Judge that the conduct of the District Justice was not such as justified a motion for removal from office.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Resignation of District Justice.
asked the Minister for Justice whether, in future in the case of alleged misconduct on the part of a District Justice, he himself will hold any necessary inquiry rather than engage the time of a High Court judge in holding an inquiry, whose findings may not be accepted.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that his recent action in calling for the resignation of a District Justice, notwithstanding the finding of a High Court judge that a motion for removal from office was not justified, tends to disturb public confidence in the independence and competence of the Judiciary, and, if so, whether he is prepared to reconsider the decision in question.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 24, 25 and 26 together.
Mr. Ó Leannain's resignation was called for because it appeared to the Government, on consideration of the report of the judicial inquiry, that it had been clearly established that his conduct, on the occasion which was the subject of the inquiry, was calculated to bring the law into contempt and was inconsistent with the obligation to uphold the Constitution of the State and its laws which Mr. Ó Leannain assumed when making and subscribing the Declaration set forth in Article 34. 5 of the Constitution, and was conduct warranting his removal from office, in the manner prescribed by Article 35 of the Constitution, in the event of his being unwilling to tender his resignation on being asked to do so.
That the judge was of opinion that Mr. Ó Leannain's misbehaviour was not such as to warrant his removal from office is beside the point, since it does not rest with the judge appointed to hold an inquiry of the kind to decide whether or not the two Houses of the Oireachtas should be moved to take action as the result of his report, still less to determine, with respect to the misconduct of a justice, whether such misconduct amounts to misbehaviour warranting his removal from office as I am aware the judge himself fully realises.
I cannot agree with the suggestion that it is a waste of time to have the facts judicially determined, where the conduct of a justice is in a question and the facts are in dispute, though I am bound to say that it does not appear to me that there was ever any doubt about the facts in this case as the misconduct occurred in open court.
Moreover, so far am I from agreeing that confidence in the administration of justice is likely to suffer from the action taken that I think the public mind, which has been greatly disturbed, has been much reassured and that the public would have just cause for complaint if misconduct of this kind were to be passed over or condoned.
Is it not a fact that a Judge was asked to give a recommendation and when he gave it, it was deliberately ignored by the Taoiseach himself?
It was not any function of the judge to report whether the justice's behaviour was such as to merit his removal or not. That was a matter to be decided by the Government.
Is it not a fact that this House was given to no opportunity to decide one way or the other? Is it not a fact that this question, which I directed to the Taoiseach, was handed over to the Minister for Justice, so that the Taoiseach would evade his personal responsibility as being first responsible for the removal?
There is no truth whatever in that statement, not one title of truth.
Is it not a fact that the majority of the Government disapproved of this and it was left to the Taoiseach to decide otherwise?
That is a figment of the Deputy's imagination.
Oh, no.