What I cannot understand is that given the case cited by Michael and the fact that the levy is very broad across the entire public service and could not therefore be seen as targeting the judiciary, why didn’t the attorney general allow it to go ahead? He seems to have taken an extremely broad reading of the way the constitutional provision on judges pay should be interpreted. I would have said run with it, and if it is successfully challenged later, so be it, at least the relevant constitutional law will be clarified further.

Secondly, given that it seemed likely that a voluntary measure could be problematic (and I accept we need more time to see if our justices will make a contribution), and given that it was obvious that there’d be a wild outcry if and when the solidarity on the part of the judges failed to materialise, why didn’t the government and the judciary have the forethought to come up with some kind of a better system?

It certainly will be interesting to see how this pans out. Not because of what it will save the exchequer, but because it will say something about how our emminent justices regard the importance of safeguarding their reputation. What I mean is that, we know it is important they are held in high regard in so far as is possible. If they willingly allow that reputation to slide, then they will be doing Irish justice a serious disservice.

Furthermore, I mentioned criticisms that can be levelled at (some of) our justices. One of which is that there is certainly a widespread impression (be it real or imagined) that they are living too remote from the people they are judging to make sound and sensible decisions. That in effect, they are in somewhat of a bubble and simply cannot understand the choices and pressures on the rest of us. Well, whether this is true or mostly a misconception, it is damaging, and one obvious way of copperfasting it would be to reject solidarity with their fellow public servants.

For this reason – the reputation of our judiciary – I strongly believe the judges should step forward.

I’m surprised that they think it would be unconstitutional to apply the levy to judges. In O’Byrne v. Minister for Finance, the Supreme Court decided that increasing income tax was constitutional even when it had the effect of reducing judicial salaries, as the measure was not specifically aimed at the judiciary.

I can’t help feeling that setting up this voluntary system was a bad idea in the first place. It will – in all probability – bring disrepute upon the judiciary and result in a mob against the judges mentality (to a degree it already has). There aren’t that many of us who would voluntarily reduce our incomes, regardless of how much in the public interest it might be!