Thread by @gavreilly

⚠️⚖️ Newly-released letters show the Chief Justice has repeatedly suggested Seamus Woulfe should resign from the Supreme Court over #golfgate - believing it is the most appropriate means "to maintain public confidence in the Supreme Court" and justice in general @VirginMediaNews

Letters published by the Chief Justice Frank Clarke show him telling Woulfe that while it wasn't an offence to attend the #golfgate dinner, a judge should not have attended any event which may have been organised in breach of law or which looked like it might have been

Even if the dinner had been lawful, Woulfe says, it still didn't comply with the objective of the regulations, which was to prevent large numbers of people mingling at social events. The fact the new health measures did not have force of law at the time was immaterial

Clarke's letters also make clear that, contrary to Woulfe's own stated opinion in his interview with former Chief Justice Susan Denham, the public view "was being formed by reasonable people" and not a "media frenzy"

Clarke's letters propose that, by way of reprimand, Woulfe will not be listed to hear any cases at the Supreme Court until February and that Woulfe waive his salary until then. Having originally suggested he donate a month's pay to charity, Woulfe has agreed

In his own reply to Clarke, Woulfe maintains he was genuinely unaware of the Cabinet decision the previous night to restrict indoor gatherings to parties of six.

However he insists as a statement of fact he attended a dinner of 45 people, not 80

Woulfe says he does not believe he should resign - because he was genuinely unaware of breaking any public health guidance, and also because he did not believe the remarks made to Denham (media frenzy, criticism of government) was to be made public

(In reply Clarke pointed out that Woulfe had been asked to give his advance consent for the release of Susan Denham's report and its appendices - which include the full transcript of his interview.)

Woulfe also argued against the release of the correspondence which is now public

Woulfe also declines to resign, following to visit of three other SC colleagues who expressed a desire he stand down.

Clarke: "The real burden of your complaint appears to be that your colleagues have been unwilling to share the benign view you take of all the matters involved"

Clarke writes: "It would be more damaging to the [Supreme] Court if I were to either simply accept your view, or perhaps worse, be seen as wiling to permit the false impression to be given that I did so"

This evening's letter follows the meeting between Woulfe and Clarke last Thursday, the substance of which was put into a draft letter later that afternoon. Woulfe replied extensively this morning, with Clarke replying again today.

Woulfe insists, as of his letter today, that the dinner was in compliance with the Guidelines for the Hotels Industry [which were written with the previous 'groups of 50' regulations in mind] and that he "respectfully" disagrees that the event breached guidelines in any way

[Comment: It's jarring that Woulfe simultaneously professes the 'true sentiment' of Government policy in July and August - to reopen the economy, balancing societal and health need - while also admitting to being completely unaware of a profound change in that the previous night]

[In stating that the event was compliant with guidelines for the hospitality industry, Woulfe again implies that new Government guidelines - introduced the previous night, without his knowledge because he wasn't following the news on holiday - somehow don't have immediate effect]

[In general his defence is that he was unaware of the new public health guidelines or the 'rule of six' introduced the previous day. For one of the country's most senior judges, and a former senior counsel of such esteem, it's bizarre that ignorance be presented as a defence.]