316 / 432
GAZETTE
OCTOBER 1994
published in July 1992: At that time,
the Government accepted in principle
the recommendations in the Report but
deferred implementation in the light of
the then Government pay policy. In
view of the
Programme for
Competitiveness and Work
and the fact
that various "past the post" cases had
been settled, the Government decided
to implement the Report with one half
of the increases being paid from
April 1, 1994 and the balance being
paid from May 1, 1995. The increases
are set out in the table below.
members of the judiciary.
A substantial reduction in
remuneration was accepted by many
practitioners in moving from the Bar
to the Bench according to the Review
Body. This occurred at the time in the
individuals' lives when their
counterparts in other, professions
would generally expect their earnings
to be increasing. The Review Body
was conscious of the fact that factors
other than pay influence individual
decisions whether to accept offers of
Judiciary
01/06/94
Reed
%
Pre-Gleeson
Report
Rate
Increase
Chief Justice
£82,025
£95,920
16.9
President of High Court
£73,604
£86,110
17.0
Judge of Supreme Court
£70,595
£82,840
17.3
Judge of High Court
£65,180
£76,300
17.1
President of Circuit Court
£65,180
£76,300
17.1
Judge of Circuit Court
£51,948
£56,680
9.1
President of District Court
£51,948
£56,680
9.1
District Judge
£43,528
£46,870
7.7
Law Officers
01/06/94
Reed
%
Pre-Gleeson
Report
Rate
Increase
Attorney General
£65,179
£76,300
17.1
Director of Public Prosecutions
£62,773
£73,575
17.2
Senior Legal Assistant,
Office of Attorney General
£62,773
£73,575
17.2
Chief State Solicitor
£62,773
£73,575
17.2
Commissioner Garda Siochana
£59,766
£65,400
9.4
In its 1992 Report, the Gleeson
Review Body noted that while some
concerns remained about continuing
difficulties in relation to judicial
appointments, the situation appeared
to have improved in recent years. It
seemed that difficulties in finding
sufficient candidates of the customary
quality was not as severe in 1992 as
has been the case in 1987. However,
the Review Body noted that earnings
of members of the legal profession
must continue to be an important
factor in determining the pay of
judicial appointment. However, too
great a discrepancy between
judicial remuneration and the
earnings of members of the legal
profession could have serious
consequences for recruitment in the
longer term.
Actuaries had determined in 1992 that
in order to achieve net pay and
pension equality with a judge of the
High Court, a self-employed barrister
would need to earn 37 per cent more
than the judge's gross salary.
The standard approach to internal
differentials, according to the Review
Body, could not be applied simpliciter
in considering the relative salaries of
judges of the different courts. While
there was a clear hierarchy of courts
in the judicial system, individual
judges were very rarely promoted
from the District Court to the Circuit
Court or from the Circuit Court to the
High Court in the same way as civil
servants, for example, progress on
promotion to a series of grades
during the course of their careers. In
reaching its conclusions, the
Review Body took due account of the
respective levels of responsibility of
judges of the different courts. The
revised salaries which the Review
Body was recommending involved
some widening of the existing salary
differentials between judges of the
Superior Courts on the one hand,
and judges of the Circuit and
District courts on the other. The
importance which the Review Body
attached to the recruitment criterion
and, hence, to the earning of legal
practitioners in determining judicial
salary rates meant that the
maintenance of existing differentials
between the judges of the various
court levels could only be of
secondary significance.
In dealing with the remuneration of
judges of the Superior Courts, the
Review Body had particular regard to
the need to take some steps to reverse
the decline that had taken place in the
relative salaries of posts at the
pinnacle of the public sector. The
Review Body considered that both
courts have special constitutional
roles and responsibilities: the
Supreme Court, as the court of final
appeal, occupied a pre-eminent
position in the judicial system and a
High Court judge, sitting alone,
dealt with cases of unlimited size in
every area and branch of the law. In
addition, Bar earnings had a
particular influence on recruitment to
these courts. Accordingly, the Review
Body concluded that a greater
increase was appropriate at this
time forjudges of the Superior
Courts than forjudges of the other
two courts.
a
292