Yesterday I dealt with the subject in a general way and I undertook to the Deputies opposite that I would deal with the specific points raised on the Bill itself. A number of matters of importance were raised which should be met.
Deputy Keating wondered if judges could be appointed administratively rather than legislatively. Article 36 of the Constitution states:
Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Constitution relating to the Courts, the following shall be regulated in accordance with law, that is to say;—
i. The number of judges of the Supreme Court, and of the High Court, the remuneration, age of retirement and pensions of such judges, ...
If the Constitution was amended in this connection Deputy Keating's suggestion might have some relevance. While his point of view is arguable, it is not sustainable under the Constitution. I respectfully suggest to him that the proper way to appoint judges is under the present system and by the means now applied. Judges should be appointed publicly and there should be discussion on their appointment in the manner in which this subject was discussed yesterday. It was a worthwhile and healthy exercise. I should much prefer that judges be appointed under legislation and in full view of this House so that they are not seen to be appointed by way of subterfuge. Regardless of the constitutional requirement, the subject should be discussed openly.
Deputy Keating suggested that some judges of the High Court were sent home because of lack of staff. We investigated the matter and found there was no substance in that suggestion. I use the word "suggestion" because I do not think the Deputy made the comment by way of charge or allegation. He raised the matter in the ordinary way and the answer is that no judge was sent home because of lack of staff.
The Deputy said there should be additional reforms in this Bill. The question of law reform generally is being pursued vigorously in the Department of Justice. I hope that there will be substantial law reform measures before this House in the new Dáil term or in the session after the Michaelmas term. I do not intend at this stage to mention the areas in which there may be reforms but I want to inform the Deputy that substantial work is being done on this matter in the Department. I have been appointed to assist the Minister for Justice in regard to that and other matters having regard to the burden put on the Minister in the matter of security and other issues.
The Post Office strike was mentioned by Deputy Keating and by Deputy Enright. It is true that the effect of the strike on High Court civil jury actions has been quite considerable. Jury summonses are usually served by post but since the Post Office strike started in February of this year it has not been possible to summon jurors for High Court actions. As a result no High Court jury actions have been heard in Dublin since early March and the jury sittings in Cork which commenced on 23 April lasted only one week instead of the usual two weeks because not enough jurors were available. The reason for the lack of jurors was that we could not serve jury summonses on them because of the postal strike.
The High Court is due to rise for the long vacation at the end of July and will not resume sittings until October. There is no possibility of jury actions being heard in the High Court before October and then only if the Post Office strike ends in time to permit of the service of summonses. The average delay from the date of setting down a jury action to the date of hearing was ten months on 6 April 1979, at the end of the Hillery term. Accordingly, the average delay period will have risen to 16 months by the end of October.
It is understood that the President of the High Court has urged litigants to have their cases heard without juries but he has not had a very favourable response. This brings us back to the point raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick. He believes strongly that civil juries should be maintained. It is clear that when there is an absence of civil juries and there is a non-jury situation on offer, that litigants will not accept a non-jury situation. There is much in what the Deputy said apart altogether from the principle involved in retaining the jury in a civil action. Litigants want juries to adjudicate on their claims. In the Easter term only one case opted for trial without jury. That copper-fastens Deputy Fitzpatrick's argument in regard to the retention of the jury system.
The Deputy also mentioned accommodation. I have an extensive note on this question and will do my best to summarise it. At present there are nine courtrooms available for High Court business and one High Court judge sits in the Special Criminal Court in Green Street. At the moment it is possible to accommodate all ten High Court judges at sittings in Dublin. Judge Costello's temporary absence has already made a courtroom available for one judge. Because High Court judges have other duties to discharge elsewhere than in courtrooms in Dublin, there are many occasions during the year when courtrooms are available which could be utilised by the proposed additional judges. Those occasions arise when the High Court goes on circuit to hear appeals and some original actions at provincial venues; when, for example, it goes to Cork in January, April and July to hear original jury actions; when judges are working in chambers in preparation of judgments, vetting transcripts of cases, writing notes on cases appealed to the High Court, studying relevant papers for sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and when in the court of Criminal Appeal, which is comprised of the Chief Justice and two High Court Judges.
That raises another matter which was mentioned by Deputy Fitzpatrick, that is, people imagining that a judge's function is to sit only for four hours a day, apart from the concentration required during that four hour sitting. A judge has a great deal more work to do than just sitting in court.
The President of the High Court expressed concern at his inability to arrange for the appropriate type of hearing of State side matters, such as habeas corpus, a certiori mandamus and prohibition. There is provision for the hearing of these court cases by a divisional court of the High Court consisting of three judges. This arrangement, which is highly desirable from the point of view of certainty and authority in matters of public importance, was commonly availed of up to about ten years ago and many of the leading reported decisions on these aspects of the law are those of such divisional courts.
Because of pressure of business in the High Court, the frequency with which the courts could be established has declined and since 1974 the President held only two, although it is understood that there were many other cases in which he felt it would have been appropriate. The restoration to the High Court of the capacity to have important issues of a kind already outlined tried by a divisional court rather than by a single judge would release two courtrooms on occasions. The courtroom accommodation which could be made available in the manner outlined is expected to be sufficient to meet the needs of the three proposed additional judges. A further jury courtroom is now being planned in the area of the Four Courts building. A court office is being renovated and a court is being created.
