The Gazette 1991

g a z e t t e

m a r c h '1991

Mr Justice Frank Griffin - a Retrospect

Mr. Justice Frank Griffin retired as a judge of the Supreme Court on 12 March, 1991, on attaining the retiring age of 72, after eighteen years of illustrious service on our highest court. Frank Griffin was called to the Bar in Trinity term 1946 and to the Inner Bar in Hilary term, 1961. On 9 October, 1971, he was appointed to the High Court and on 3 January, 1973, to the Supreme Court. While on the High Court he was the first presiding judge in the re-established Special Criminal Court. When a barrister is appointed to writer has never known Griffin, J. to

judges, he had sympathy for the weak and poor, for the individual against the powerful corporation but his sense of fairness and common- sense prevented him from allowing sympathy to lead to injustice. Whereas at times his judgment simply consisted of concurring with one or more of his colleagues in most cases he delivered an inde- pendent judgment setting out his own reasons. It is my perception that in most cases his judgments coin- cided in their conclusion with that of the majority of the Court. As an illustration, I would refer to one of his early j udgmen ts delivered in 1974, in McNamara, an infant -v- Electricity Supply Board, [1975], I.R. 1. The plaintiff, an 11-year old boy living in a housing estate in Limerick City, close to an ESB sub - s t a t i on wh i ch was surrounded by a chain-link wire fence w i th numerous warning notices, having got over the fence on to a flat roof came in contact with a conductor carrying 10,000 volts causing him very serious injuries including amputation of part of the right arm and part of the left arm. The issue was the obligation, if any, of an occupier t owa r ds a trespasser, if the occupier had reason to believe that trespass was occu r r i ng. The judgment of Mr. Justice Griffin is a model of a study of changes in the law, how they came about, and the necessity to adjust to modern conditions. In the course of his judgment he said: — "If, by reason of its rigidity or harshness, a rule is found to be unsatisfactory it is undesirable that efforts to circumvent it should be made rather than it should be reconsidered. This has been done in recent years in regard to the rule in Addie's Case". He also said: — "Purtill's case was criticised by counsel for the defendants on the basis that it was breaking new ground and that the notion of proximity was being intro- duced for the first time in that case. However, this is not so, as it is to be found in Heaven -v- Pender .... so t ha t, like

be wrong in any detail in the tran- script and papers which he had to read and there have been many cases in which the volume of papers lodged in the Supreme Court for reading by the judges would have to be seen to be believed. Every judge of the Supreme Court is independent in the exercise of his functions, and is free to express his personal opinion on matters of law and fact arising in the course of a case. It is not infrequent that judges, for the time being forming the Court, differ in their attitudes to issues of law and fact in a particular case. In a final court of appeal it is probably helpful that a problem is looked at from several angles. It would be impossible within the scope of this article to attempt to make a full assessment of the role played by Mr. Justice Griffin in the Supreme Court during his eighteen years of service. All one can do is to present the broad picture, as subjectively viewed by the writer. During his time on the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Griffin served with three Chief Justices. It is interesting to recall that Mr. Justice William O'B. Fitzgerald was ap- pointed Chief Justice on the same date as Frank Griffin was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. When Chief Justice Fitzgerald died in October 1974, he was succeed- ed by Chief Justice Thomas F. O'Higgins who resigned in January, 1985 in order to serve as the Irish Judge on the EC Court and was succeeded by the present Chief Justice, Thomas A. Finlay. From the very beginning Mr. Justice Griffin's judgments were independent, balanced, dealing with the facts accurately, clearly and fairly, and showing excellent and lucid research when reciting from prior precedent. Like virtually all

be a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court generally his working pattern has been formed, the discipline to which he has sub- jected himself professionally has become a habit, his prejudices, if any, have become established and his fairness or otherwise is part of his personality. Frank Griffin's practice at the Bar was impressive in volume and extensive in variety. Where required, his research of the law was thorough and accurate. He was gifted with an exceptionally good memory for facts and people. He was a skilful advocate and his overall performance was tempered by commonsense. In 1971, when Frank Griffin believed that he was about to be confronted with making a choice between accepting an appointment to the High Court bench or con- tinuing his practice, he discussed his problem wi th a number of his colleagues. The problem, as he saw it, was that the professional de- mands on his time were so heavy that he thought that if he went on the bench, he would have more time to devote to family life. He made his choice, but he never got the leisure for which he had hoped. His period as a High Court judge was a turbulent period in the Special Criminal Court which in- volved a good deal of stress and strain and, I believe, even a demon- stration outside his own home. Many people do not appreciate the volume of work, ever in- creasing, thrown on a judge of the Supreme Court. A judge has to have the energy and capacity to draw from the transcript and ac company i ng do c umen ts a picture of the case and the issues involved. Mr. Justice Griffin, in spite of some vicissitudes of health, had and has, tremendous energy and capacity for attention to detail. The

55