“As you know, I have no powers, under the Constitution or any relevant legislation, to impose any formal sanction on a member of the judiciary.”
Unanimous view
Mr Justice Clarke told Mr Justice Woulfe that it was the unanimous view of all the members of the Supreme Court that very significant and irreparable damage had been done as a result of the controversy.
Therefore, he was giving his personal opinion that Mr Justice Woulfe should resign, even though it was not part of his role as Chief Justice to tell him to go.
Referring to the report into the matter by former Chief Justice Susan Denham, Chief Justice Frank Clarke commented that he had to deal with the situation as it now was.
“The manner in which you have met this problem has, in my view, added very substantially to the damage caused to the court, the judiciary generally and, thus, to the administration of justice. In that context, I would remind you of a telephone conversation on the evening of August 21st in which I informed you of 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.
"The concentration on narrow and technical issues rather than recognising the serious public concern and the consequent damage to the court has only added to the seriousness of the situation.
Serious issues
“Unfortunately, further serious issues now arise out of both aspects of the transcripts of your interview with Ms Justice Denham and elements of the correspondence between us since the delivery of her report.”
Chief Justice Clarke said he had considered the cumulative effect of the controversy in giving his opinion, and that the event was designed to circumvent public-health regulations.
Declining to quit
It has emerged, however, that Mr Justice Woulfe is declining to quit, as correspondence between the two was released last night, in which he said he had come to the conclusion that he should not resign, having thought deeply about the matter.
Chief Justice Clarke also told Mr Justice Woulfe, who was appointed to the court last July, that he would not be listed to sit on the court until February next year.
He also urged him to waive or repay his salary for that period: “In that context you repeated the offer made in correspondence to donate a month’s salary to charity and offered to make a further apology.
"I do not consider that course of action sufficient. It had been my intention that this period would run between October and December but, given that our meeting was delayed by a month, I have put the end date also back by a similar period.”
Mr Justice Woulfe said he accepted not being assigned to sit to hear any cases until February and would be willing to forego his salary for three months. He said he would donate his salary for that period to a nominated charity, and that he would be willing to sit, unpaid, as a High Court judge during this time.
‘Misunderstanding’
Mr Justice Woulfe added that he would also accept the Chief Justice’s reprimand if that would ensure resolution of the matter.
However, he said that the reprimand has been based on a misunderstanding, and he couldn’t leave the Chief Justice’s remarks unchallenged, given the intention to publish the correspondence – a decision he described as “inappropriate”.
Offence and hurt
Mr Justice Woulfe said his attendance at the dinner was ill-judged, occasioned offence and hurt to the public, and damage to the court and “this is a cause of profound regret”.
In his letter to Mr Justice Woulfe last Thursday (5 November), the Chief Justice told him that even if the dinner in Clifden was lawful, it did not comply with the objective of the public health regulations, to avoid public gatherings at social events.
Attendance added to a public-health hazard and to a perception that legal technicalities outweighed public health, he said.
Urgent advice
Mr Justice Clarke said that the guidelines limiting gatherings were on foot of the urgent advice of public-health experts.
Judges must exercise vigilance to comply with all such rules in the interests of social solidarity and public health, at a time when the restrictions were causing hardship, he said.
He added that judges should exercise vigilance to ensure that they complied with such guidelines, unless they had strong justification for doing otherwise.
Public view
Judge Woulfe’s handling of the matter had added very substantially to the damage caused to the court, the judiciary and the administration of justice, the Chief Justice said.
The public view of the controversial golf outing was formed by reasonable people and not by a media frenzy, he added.
“That account appeared to show that you 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. There would be legitimate public scepticism about the genuineness of any such apology.
Critical
“Separately, you 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, as a result of both their tone and content, created further genuine controversy.
"It is a longstanding 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.”
In response, Mr Justice Woulfe said he did not believe that the transcript would be made public, and that he was under immense physical and emotional pressure at the time.
Damage
The transcript of Mr Justice Woulfe’s remarks had caused even greater damage to the judiciary, the Chief Justice said, and to the relationships essential to the proper functioning of a collegiate court.
“It is not part of my role to ask, let alone tell, you to resign,” the Chief Justice continued. “Resignation is and can only be for the judge him or herself.
Personal opinion
"Regrettably, however, I believe that I should make clear my personal opinion that, to avoid continuing serious damage to the judiciary, you should resign. I asked you to reflect on this. You have indicated that you do not intend to resign.”
In a brief statement this morning, the Government says that it has asked the Attorney General to advise it on the matter.