theirishtimes--2020-11-09--Woulfe told to resign by Chief Justice three times since last Thursday

The Chief Justice told Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe when they met last Thursday he should resign over his attendance at the Oireachtas golf society dinner .
He set out that view in a letter the same evening and reiterated it in a follow up letter yesterday [ Monday ] after receiving Judge Woulfe ’ s reply .
In his November 5th letter , the Chief Justice said Mr Justice Woulfe ’ s approach to handling the issue “ has , in my view , added very substantially to the damage caused to the Court , the judiciary generally and thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He reminded the judge of a phone conversation they had on August 21st , when the Chief Justice expressed “ my considerable concern that damage was being caused to the judiciary and that the public view was being formed by reasonable people and not by a media frenzy ” .
He said further serious issues arose out of aspects of the transcripts of the judge ’ s interview with former Chief Justice Susan Denham .
That account appeared to show the judge “ did not appreciate the genuine public concern about the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather continued to put the controversy down to a media frenzy .
“ Indeed , your statement that you did not understand what you were apologising for at the time when you issued your limited apology would now significantly devalue any further apology.
” The Chief Justice noted the judge , in his interview with Ms Justice Denham , commented adversely on the Government ’ s management of the public health crisis and made remarks critical of the Taoiseach and many other office holders which “ created further genuine controversy ” .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and important aspect of the reciprocal respect due by the institutions of the State to each other that judges do not engage in or give rise to matters of controversy most particularly involving the other branches.
” He was also critical of what he said was the judge ’ s implication that some of his colleagues may have prejudged him .
The “ reasonable response ” of a great number of people to the transcripts of the judge ’ s interview has “ caused even greater damage to the judiciary than did your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His view , and the unanimous view of all of the members of the court , was the cumulative effect of all of these matters “ has been to cause a very significant and irreparable damage ” to the court and to the relationship within it “ essential to the proper functioning of a collegiate court ” .
“ It is not part of my role to ask , let alone tell , you to resign .
Resignation is and can only be for the judge him or herself .
Regrettably , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear my personal opinion that , to avoid continuing serious damage to the judiciary , you should resign.
” He noted the judge had said he would not resign and had offered to donate a month ’ s salary to charity .
He had followed that up with an offer , as the Chief Justice earlier proposed , not to sit as a Supreme Court judge until February 2021 .
He also offered to donate three months salary to a nominated charity and to sit as a High Court judge until February 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , if matters had not worsened following the Denham review , the judge should not sit until February 2021 and should waive or repay his salary until then .

Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe: Made remarks critical of the Taoiseach and many other office holders which ‘created further genuine controversy’. Photograph: Alan Betson / The Irish Times
The Chief Justice told Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe when they met last Thursday he should resign over his attendance at the Oireachtas golf society dinner.
He set out that view in a letter the same evening and reiterated it in a follow up letter yesterday [Monday] after receiving Judge Woulfe’s reply.
In his November 5th letter, the Chief Justice said Mr Justice Woulfe’s approach to handling the issue “has, in my view, added very substantially to the damage caused to the Court, the judiciary generally and thus to the administration of justice”.
He reminded the judge of a phone conversation they had on August 21st, when the Chief Justice expressed “my considerable concern that damage was being caused to the judiciary and that the public view was being formed by reasonable people and not by a media frenzy”.
READ MORE
He said further serious issues arose out of aspects of the transcripts of the judge's interview with former Chief Justice Susan Denham.
That account appeared to show the judge “did not appreciate the genuine public concern about the event and your attendance at it, but rather continued to put the controversy down to a media frenzy.
“Indeed, your statement that you did not understand what you were apologising for at the time when you issued your limited apology would now significantly devalue any further apology.”
Remarks
The Chief Justice noted the judge, in his interview with Ms Justice Denham, commented adversely on the Government's management of the public health crisis and made remarks critical of the Taoiseach and many other office holders which "created further genuine controversy".
He said: “It is a long-standing and important aspect of the reciprocal respect due by the institutions of the State to each other that judges do not engage in or give rise to matters of controversy most particularly involving the other branches.”
He was also critical of what he said was the judge’s implication that some of his colleagues may have prejudged him.
The "reasonable response" of a great number of people to the transcripts of the judge's interview has "caused even greater damage to the judiciary than did your attendance at the Clifden event".
His view, and the unanimous view of all of the members of the court, was the cumulative effect of all of these matters “has been to cause a very significant and irreparable damage” to the court and to the relationship within it “essential to the proper functioning of a collegiate court”.
“It is not part of my role to ask, let alone tell, you to resign. Resignation is and can only be for the judge him or herself. Regrettably, however, I believe that I should make clear my personal opinion that, to avoid continuing serious damage to the judiciary, you should resign.”
He noted the judge had said he would not resign and had offered to donate a month's salary to charity. He had followed that up with an offer, as the Chief Justice earlier proposed, not to sit as a Supreme Court judge until February 2021. He also offered to donate three months salary to a nominated charity and to sit as a High Court judge until February 2021.
The Chief Justice had expressed the view, if matters had not worsened following the Denham review, the judge should not sit until February 2021 and should waive or repay his salary until then.


theirishtimes--2020-11-09--Government may have to get involved in removal of judge from Supreme Court

The time may be coming for politicians to get involved in the removal of Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe from the Supreme Court .
After the publication on Monday of the extraordinary correspondence between the judge and the Chief Justice , Frank Clarke , it is clear the attempt at an “ informal resolution ” of the crisis has reached an impasse .
The Chief Justice has taken the extraordinary step of asking the latest appointee to his court to resign and then published the fact , and the appointee has responded by saying he does not intend to resign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chief Justice and the other members of the Supreme Court are of the view that the heart of the crisis now facing the judiciary is the poor judgement of Mr Justice Woulfe .
It is hard to see how serious and legitimate concerns about that matter can be resolved by a temporary loss of income , or a period of time spent in Coventry .
“ It is the cumulative effect of this serious controversy that I have to consider , ” the Chief Justice said , in relation to his decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The numerous jarring comments made by Mr Justice Woulfe during his interview with Ms Justice Susan Denham on September 8th , as revealed in the subsequently published transcript , always had the flavour of rupture that would be near impossible to repair .
The comments created a worrying sense of a gulf between what was in the minds of most people watching the crisis over the judge ’ s attendance at the Oireachtas golf dinner in Clifden last August , and what was in the mind of Mr Justice Woulfe .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 2nd between Mr Justice Woulfe and three senior judges – Donal O ’ Donnell , Iseult O ’ Malley and George Birmingham – was arranged , the Chief Justice said in the correspondence now published , because of a concern “ that you did not appreciate the seriousness of the matter ” .
Mr Justice Woulfe , the correspondence makes clear , has been repeatedly put out by the fact that the dealings he has had with the court since the end of the Denham review were not for the purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could hear the harsh words that his colleagues felt it necessary to say to him .
“ Your accounts and contentions have all been ventilated at very great length ” both in the Denham review and subsequent “ extensive correspondence ” , the Chief Justice said to Mr Justice Woulfe in response to the judge ’ s complaint about the lack of negotiation .
The meeting with the three judges was held so that the newest member of the court could hear his colleagues ’ views , the Chief Justice said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be that your colleagues have been unwilling to share the benign view you take of all the matters involved here.
” It is terrible to have such an obvious gulf between a new appointee to the Supreme Court and the rest of the court , laid out in such excruciating detail .
The division is not about the wisdom or otherwise of Mr Justice Woulfe ’ s attendance at a golfing dinner in the middle of a public health emergency , but rather about how a person holding one of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has dealt with the resulting controversy .
Even friends and sympathisers of Mr Justice Woulfe agree privately that he has repeatedly shown bad judgment .
And further evidence of poor judgment , and jarring propositions , is contained in the correspondence that has now been published .
The Chief Justice said he felt he had no alternative to expressing his personal opinion that Mr Justice Woulfe should resign , in circumstances where the judge “ while suggesting that you will apologise and made amends ” was maintaining “ that you did little wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former attorney general ’ s response to criticism of his ill-advised comments during the Denham interview .
Mr Justice Woulfe said he had thought the interview was private and that he would not have said what he said if he ’ d known his remarks were to be published .
It ’ s not the type of defence you really want to be hearing from someone who has been chosen by the Government for appointment to the State ’ s top court .
It is the unanimous view of all the members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been the cause of “ very significant and irreparable damage ” to the court , the Chief Justice said in the correspondence .
That Mr Justice Woulfe should continue to be a member of the court , and receive a salary of in excess of €200,000 a year , when public confidence in him has been so damaged , can not be good for the administration of justice .
He ’ s been treated roughly , though not necessarily unfairly , by his judicial colleagues .
But what ’ s been done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem .
Now maybe the Oireachtas , and the Government that nominated Mr Justice Woulfe , need to consider whether the time has come for them to get involved .

Chief Justice Frank Clarke (left) and Supreme Court judge Séamus Woulfe. It now seems clear that the Chief Justice and the other members of the Supreme Court are of the view that the heart of the crisis now facing the judiciary is the poor judgement of Mr Justice Woulfe. Photograph: Alan Betson
The time may be coming for politicians to get involved in the removal of Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe from the Supreme Court.
After the publication on Monday of the extraordinary correspondence between the judge and the Chief Justice, Frank Clarke, it is clear the attempt at an "informal resolution" of the crisis has reached an impasse.
The Chief Justice has taken the extraordinary step of asking the latest appointee to his court to resign and then published the fact, and the appointee has responded by saying he does not intend to resign.
Furthermore, it now seems clear that the Chief Justice and the other members of the Supreme Court are of the view that the heart of the crisis now facing the judiciary is the poor judgement of Mr Justice Woulfe.
READ MORE
It is hard to see how serious and legitimate concerns about that matter can be resolved by a temporary loss of income, or a period of time spent in Coventry.
‘Cumulative effect’
“It is the cumulative effect of this serious controversy that I have to consider,” the Chief Justice said, in relation to his decision to suggest that his colleague should resign.
The numerous jarring comments made by Mr Justice Woulfe during his interview with Ms Justice Susan Denham on September 8th, as revealed in the subsequently published transcript, always had the flavour of rupture that would be near impossible to repair.
The comments created a worrying sense of a gulf between what was in the minds of most people watching the crisis over the judge's attendance at the Oireachtas golf dinner in Clifden last August, and what was in the mind of Mr Justice Woulfe.
The meeting held in the Four Courts on October 2nd between Mr Justice Woulfe and three senior judges – Donal O'Donnell, Iseult O'Malley and George Birmingham – was arranged, the Chief Justice said in the correspondence now published, because of a concern "that you did not appreciate the seriousness of the matter".
Mr Justice Woulfe, the correspondence makes clear, has been repeatedly put out by the fact that the dealings he has had with the court since the end of the Denham review were not for the purpose of negotiation, but rather so that he could hear the harsh words that his colleagues felt it necessary to say to him.
“Your accounts and contentions have all been ventilated at very great length” both in the Denham review and subsequent “extensive correspondence”, the Chief Justice said to Mr Justice Woulfe in response to the judge’s complaint about the lack of negotiation.
‘Benign view’
The meeting with the three judges was held so that the newest member of the court could hear his colleagues’ views, the Chief Justice said. “The real burden of your complaint appears to be that your colleagues have been unwilling to share the benign view you take of all the matters involved here.”
It is terrible to have such an obvious gulf between a new appointee to the Supreme Court and the rest of the court, laid out in such excruciating detail.
The division is not about the wisdom or otherwise of Mr Justice Woulfe’s attendance at a golfing dinner in the middle of a public health emergency, but rather about how a person holding one of the most important judicial roles in the State, has dealt with the resulting controversy.
Even friends and sympathisers of Mr Justice Woulfe agree privately that he has repeatedly shown bad judgment. And further evidence of poor judgment, and jarring propositions, is contained in the correspondence that has now been published.
The Chief Justice said he felt he had no alternative to expressing his personal opinion that Mr Justice Woulfe should resign, in circumstances where the judge “while suggesting that you will apologise and made amends” was maintaining “that you did little wrong”.
A similar point arises from the former attorney general’s response to criticism of his ill-advised comments during the Denham interview. Mr Justice Woulfe said he had thought the interview was private and that he would not have said what he said if he’d known his remarks were to be published.
Top court
It’s not the type of defence you really want to be hearing from someone who has been chosen by the Government for appointment to the State’s top court.
It is the unanimous view of all the members of the court that Mr Justice Woulfe has been the cause of “very significant and irreparable damage” to the court, the Chief Justice said in the correspondence.
That Mr Justice Woulfe should continue to be a member of the court, and receive a salary of in excess of €200,000 a year, when public confidence in him has been so damaged, cannot be good for the administration of justice.
He’s been treated roughly, though not necessarily unfairly, by his judicial colleagues. But what’s been done to date hasn’t resolved the problem.
Now maybe the Oireachtas, and the Government that nominated Mr Justice Woulfe, need to consider whether the time has come for them to get involved.


theirishtimes--2020-11-09--Sophie Toscan du Plantier family lawyer says Ireland must act

A lawyer acting for the family of murdered French film producer Sophie Toscan du Plantier has expressed hope that Ireland will respond promptly to a call by the European Commission to address shortcomings in its application of European Arrest Warrant ( EAW ) legislation .
Alain Spilliaert , who acts for Ms Toscan du Plantier ’ s elderly parents , Georges and Marguerite Bouniol , and her son Pierre Louis Baudey Vignaud , said he was encouraged by the European Commission ’ s decision to look at Ireland ’ s interpretation of EAW legislation .
Mr Spilliaert said the European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU countries and was aware of the recent decision by the Irish High Court to refuse the extradition of Mr Bailey to France to serve a 25 year sentence for the killing of Ms Toscan du Plantier .
On October 12th , Mr Justice Paul Burns refused Mr Bailey ’ s surrender after the French authorities had issued a third EAW for Mr Bailey ’ s extradition following his conviction in absentia in the Cour d ’ Assises in Paris in May 2019 for the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier in West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the European Commission ’ s letter to Ireland on October 30th requesting Ireland comply with requirements of the EAW framework decision focussed in particular on Ireland complying with the six-month mandatory time limit on dealing with EAW requests .
However , he said the second part of the European Commission letter pointed out Ireland had “ provided additional grounds for refusal of a European Arrest Warrant , which affect judicial cross-border co-operation in criminal matters ” .
Mr Spilliaert said although the letter did not refer to the Bailey case specifically by name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounds ” was a reference to decisions by the Supreme Court in 2012 and Mr Justice Burn ’ s ruling last month to prohibit Mr Bailey ’ s extradition on the grounds of reciprocity .
Under French law , a person can be tried in France for the murder of a French citizen abroad but Irish law has no reciprocal provision , only allowing prosecution for offences outside of Ireland where the alleged perpetrator is an Irish citizen or a person ordinarily resident in Ireland .
“ Obviously , the Bailey case is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been reviewed by the European Commission for years so when the Commission sends a letter to Ireland and refers to “ additional grounds ” , I think we are into Bailey ’ s case and the decisions of the Irish courts in relation to it.
” He said the Commission has given Ireland two months to take the necessary steps to address the shortcomings identified by the Commission and given the rulings by the Supreme Court in 2012 and the High Court in 2020 , he believed this meant Ireland needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way I believe that Ireland can address these shortcomings given the interpretation of the Irish courts of the European Arrest Framework Document of 2002 is for the Irish parliament to introduce new legislation that will remedy the situation , ” he said .
Mr Bailey was twice arrested by gardaí but never charged in Ireland after the DPP decided he should not be prosecuted and he has repeatedly denied any involvement in the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier or that he ever made any admissions in relation to her death .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s family have expressed their continuing dismay .
Ms Toscan du Plantier ’ s brother , Bertrand Bouniol , told The Irish Times the family ’ s position on the matter was simple : “ A court has declared that he is guilty - that is the reality , decided by three professional judges after a trial that was above reproach.
” Speaking on behalf of his parents and his nephew as well as his brother , Stephane , Mr Bouniol said : “ The Paris court declared him guilty of Sophie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 years imprisonment.
” Mr Bouniol said that the Irish justice system had refused to extradite Mr Bailey was not surprising , but the French criminal court had established Mr Bailey ’ s guilt while highlighting the shortcomings of an Irish investigation .
“ The Irish State decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court , but whatever the decision , no one today can consider that this criminal case has remained a mystery , ” he said .
“ We take note that Ireland refuses to turn with dignity this sad page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family no longer needs it to do so .
”

A lawyer acting for the family of murdered French film producer Sophie Toscan du Plantier has expressed hope that Ireland will respond promptly to a call by the European Commission to address shortcomings in its application of European Arrest Warrant (EAW) legislation.
Alain Spilliaert, who acts for Ms Toscan du Plantier’s elderly parents, Georges and Marguerite Bouniol, and her son Pierre Louis Baudey Vignaud, said he was encouraged by the European Commission’s decision to look at Ireland’s interpretation of EAW legislation.
Mr Spilliaert said the European Commission closely monitors legal developments in all EU countries and was aware of the recent decision by the Irish High Court to refuse the extradition of Mr Bailey to France to serve a 25 year sentence for the killing of Ms Toscan du Plantier.
On October 12th, Mr Justice Paul Burns refused Mr Bailey’s surrender after the French authorities had issued a third EAW for Mr Bailey’s extradition following his conviction in absentia in the Cour d’Assises in Paris in May 2019 for the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier in West Cork in 1996.
READ MORE
Mr Spilliaert acknowledged the European Commission’s letter to Ireland on October 30th requesting Ireland comply with requirements of the EAW framework decision focussed in particular on Ireland complying with the six-month mandatory time limit on dealing with EAW requests.
However, he said the second part of the European Commission letter pointed out Ireland had “provided additional grounds for refusal of a European Arrest Warrant, which affect judicial cross-border co-operation in criminal matters”.
Mr Spilliaert said although the letter did not refer to the Bailey case specifically by name, he believed the words “additional grounds” was a reference to decisions by the Supreme Court in 2012 and Mr Justice Burn’s ruling last month to prohibit Mr Bailey’s extradition on the grounds of reciprocity.
Under French law, a person can be tried in France for the murder of a French citizen abroad but Irish law has no reciprocal provision, only allowing prosecution for offences outside of Ireland where the alleged perpetrator is an Irish citizen or a person ordinarily resident in Ireland.
“Obviously, the Bailey case is one of the most famous cases that has been reviewed by the European Commission for years so when the Commission sends a letter to Ireland and refers to “additional grounds”, I think we are into Bailey’s case and the decisions of the Irish courts in relation to it.”
He said the Commission has given Ireland two months to take the necessary steps to address the shortcomings identified by the Commission and given the rulings by the Supreme Court in 2012 and the High Court in 2020, he believed this meant Ireland needed to introduce new legislation.
“The only way I believe that Ireland can address these shortcomings given the interpretation of the Irish courts of the European Arrest Framework Document of 2002 is for the Irish parliament to introduce new legislation that will remedy the situation,” he said.
Mr Bailey was twice arrested by gardaí but never charged in Ireland after the DPP decided he should not be prosecuted and he has repeatedly denied any involvement in the murder of Ms Toscan du Plantier or that he ever made any admissions in relation to her death.
Meanwhile, Ms Toscan’s du Plantier’s family have expressed their continuing dismay.
Ms Toscan du Plantier’s brother, Bertrand Bouniol, told The Irish Times the family’s position on the matter was simple: “A court has declared that he is guilty - that is the reality, decided by three professional judges after a trial that was above reproach.”
Speaking on behalf of his parents and his nephew as well as his brother, Stephane, Mr Bouniol said: “The Paris court declared him guilty of Sophie’s murder and sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment.”
Mr Bouniol said that the Irish justice system had refused to extradite Mr Bailey was not surprising, but the French criminal court had established Mr Bailey’s guilt while highlighting the shortcomings of an Irish investigation.
“The Irish State decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court, but whatever the decision, no one today can consider that this criminal case has remained a mystery,” he said.
“We take note that Ireland refuses to turn with dignity this sad page of its legal history, but our family no longer needs it to do so.”


theirishtimes--2020-11-09--Woulfe tells Chief Justice he does not intend to resign

Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe has told the Chief Justice , Frank Clarke , that he does not intend to resign .
In a letter on Monday , Mr Justice Woulfe repeated a view that he had expressed to Mr Justice Clarke during a brief meeting between the two men last Friday in the Four Courts .
“ The fact that the President of a Court to which I belong and a man for whom I have the utmost personal and professional respect , and whom I regard as a friend , should express even a personal view that I should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriousness which I have to consider and reflect upon , not only from my own perspective , but from the perspective of the institution of the judiciary and the importance of the independence of each individual member of the judiciary , ” he said .
Mr Justice Woulfe said he had to consider whether he should resign to avoid damage or further damage to the judiciary , a matter he regarded as of the utmost importance .
“ Equally , I have to consider the circumstances under which a judge should resign under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the implications of a resignation in such circumstances for the independence of individual judges .
“ I have , as you can imagine , thought very deeply about this and have taken extensive advice from a number of people , ” he said .
“ I have come to the conclusion that I should not resign.
” Mr Justice Woulfe , who was appointed to the Supreme Court in July , then went on to explain his position .
He said it was simply not true that he had sat down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I attended dinner in a room with 45 people , ” he said .
He said he had not intended to create the impression that he blamed the media for the controversy , to the extent that he did not appreciate any genuine public concern about the event .
“ My point was that the entirely understandable public concern and , indeed , outrage , was based on the assumption that I had attended a dinner in a room with 80 people.
” Addressing the issue of his having made remarks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr Justice Woulfe said he believed his interview by the former chief justice , Susan Denham , on September 8th , was to have remained private .
The public controversy over his remarks “ arose from the fact that you , in your role as Chairman of the Judicial Council , along with your judicial colleagues on the council , decided to publish the transcript ” of the meeting .
Mr Justice Woulfe said that at the time of the interview he was under “ the most intense pressure , personally , physically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in effect , fighting for my professional life and reputation and speaking the truth as I understood it.
” As to his comment that he feared some of his judicial colleagues might have prejudged him , Mr Justice Woulfe said he “ would not have made such a comment about any of my fellow judges had I known that the transcript of this meeting would be made public ” .
He quoted from an email he sent Mr Justice Clarke in the wake of a meeting on October 2nd with Mr Justice Donal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Malley and the president of the Court of Appeal , Mr Justice George Birmingham , ( who is an ex-officio member of the Supreme Court ) .
Their collective demeanour was “ unexpected , upsetting and traumatic , and has added very significantly to an already stressful situation , ” Mr Justice Woulfe said in the email .
Mr Justice Woulfe , in his letter sent on Monday , said he did not believe any of the three reasons given by the Chief Justice for his resignation , individually or collectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his resignation .
Earlier in his letter Mr Justice Woulfe said he would accept a reprimand for his having attended the Golfgate dinner , even though “ I believe it is based on a misunderstanding ” .
He also said he was willing to accept that he would not be assigned to hear a Supreme Court case until February of next year , and that he would give his salary for three months to a charity “ if that would ensure resolution ” of the crisis .
Mr Justice Woulfe argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be published .

Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe said he had not intended to create the impression that he blamed the media for the ‘Golfgate’ controversy. Photograph: Nick Bradshaw
Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe has told the Chief Justice, Frank Clarke, that he does not intend to resign.
In a letter on Monday, Mr Justice Woulfe repeated a view that he had expressed to Mr Justice Clarke during a brief meeting between the two men last Thursday in the Four Courts.
“The fact that the President of a Court to which I belong and a man for whom I have the utmost personal and professional respect, and whom I regard as a friend, should express even a personal view that I should resign, is something of the utmost seriousness which I have to consider and reflect upon, not only from my own perspective, but from the perspective of the institution of the judiciary and the importance of the independence of each individual member of the judiciary,” he said.
Mr Justice Woulfe said he had to consider whether he should resign to avoid damage or further damage to the judiciary, a matter he regarded as of the utmost importance.
READ MORE
“Equally, I have to consider the circumstances under which a judge should resign under pressure from a fellow judge or judges, and the implications of a resignation in such circumstances for the independence of individual judges.
“I have, as you can imagine, thought very deeply about this and have taken extensive advice from a number of people,” he said. “I have come to the conclusion that I should not resign.”
Clifden dinner
Mr Justice Woulfe, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in July, then went on to explain his position.
He said it was simply not true that he had sat down to dinner in Clifden with 80 people. “I attended dinner in a room with 45 people,” he said.
He said he had not intended to create the impression that he blamed the media for the controversy, to the extent that he did not appreciate any genuine public concern about the event. “My point was that the entirely understandable public concern and, indeed, outrage, was based on the assumption that I had attended a dinner in a room with 80 people.”
Addressing the issue of his having made remarks critical of members of the Government, Mr Justice Woulfe said he believed his interview by the former chief justice, Susan Denham, on September 8th, was to have remained private.
The public controversy over his remarks "arose from the fact that you, in your role as Chairman of the Judicial Council, along with your judicial colleagues on the council, decided to publish the transcript" of the meeting.
Mr Justice Woulfe said that at the time of the interview he was under “the most intense pressure, personally, physically and emotionally”.
He was “in effect, fighting for my professional life and reputation and speaking the truth as I understood it.”
Transcript
As to his comment that he feared some of his judicial colleagues might have prejudged him, Mr Justice Woulfe said he “would not have made such a comment about any of my fellow judges had I known that the transcript of this meeting would be made public”.
He quoted from an email he sent Mr Justice Clarke in the wake of a meeting on October 2nd with Mr Justice Donal O'Donnell, Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley and the president of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice George Birmingham, (who is an ex-officio member of the Supreme Court).
Their collective demeanour was “unexpected, upsetting and traumatic, and has added very significantly to an already stressful situation,” Mr Justice Woulfe said in the email.
Mr Justice Woulfe, in his letter sent on Monday, said he did not believe any of the three reasons given by the Chief Justice for his resignation, individually or collectively, “remotely constitute substantial grounds” for his resignation.
Earlier in his letter Mr Justice Woulfe said he would accept a reprimand for his having attended the Golfgate dinner, even though “I believe it is based on a misunderstanding”.
He also said he was willing to accept that he would not be assigned to hear a Supreme Court case until February of next year, and that he would give his salary for three months to a charity “if that would ensure resolution” of the crisis.
Mr Justice Woulfe argued that the correspondence between the two men should not be published.