Sir, – I read, with some alarm, the comments by Justice Síofra O’Leary, president of the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the Irish courts’ “interpretation of legislation and rules” for conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights (“Judge queries Irish courts’ engagement with European human rights convention”, News, May 28th). She scolded our judiciary as they do not “creatively extend or amend existing legislation”. She then attacked this lack of judicial activism as bolstering “national parliamentary sovereignty”. If the judge wishes to amend legislation, then she should seek a democratic mandate. It is important that we maintain the separation of powers between the various areas of government: parliamentary, executive and judicial.
As somebody who was heavily involved in drafting the Belfast Agreement’s Human Rights Section and in that context, pushed hard for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic legislation in both Ireland and the UK, I find the judge’s statement injurious to the long-term interests of defending the convention. The convention is a key element in the human rights underpinning of that historic agreement. Statements, like those attributed to Justice O’Leary, give ample ammunition to those who wish to undermine the basic human rights guarantees contained in the convention.
Such statements undermine public confidence in institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights and in the convention itself. They are too important to be endangered by judges seeking to encroach on the rightful remit of parliaments. – Yours, etc,
Dr RAY BASSETT,
TV guide: the best new shows to watch on RTÉ, BBC, UTV, E4, Disney+ and Apple TV+
Author Lisa Harding: ‘I have never been scared to look at the dark side of life’
Ask Roe: ‘My ex blanks me at group events – and my family and friends make excuses for him’
Donald Clarke: No, I didn’t watch Sinners all the way through before giving it five stars
(Former Irish diplomat),
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
