Batt O'Keeffe
Question:12 Mr. B. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice if she intends to increase the number of District Court Judges in the immediate future.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - District Court Judges.
I have no proposals at present to increase the number of judges on the Bench of the District Court.
Ballincollig and Carrigaline are two vastly expanding areas. In recent years we have had to seek special sittings of courts in those areas. While I am aware that it requires enabling legislation, will the Minister accede to a request for more district judges? Because of the greater demand on District Courts perhaps the time has come to appoint additional district judges?
The position in the Ballincollig area is that monthly sittings of the District Court are arranged. I am informed that since January there have been six sittings and about six special sittings to clear the backlog. The same applies in Carrigaline. With the range and volume of business now being dealt with by the District Court, which has increased quite substantially over the years, I concede there are bound to be delays and there are delays in certain instances. The President of the District Court has an administrative function here. It is his responsibility to arrange the smooth running of the District Court and the efficient transaction of business there. When there is a backlog the President arranges to move one of the 11 permanent district judges into that District Court area to clear the backlog. Alternatively, in conjunction with the local district judge, he may arrange special sittings.
My desire is to make the most efficient possible use of our resources. We have at present 46 permanent district judges. My aim is to make the most efficient use of them. Having said that, I do concede that as a result of the implementation of the provisions of the Courts Act, 1991, which increased the jurisdiction of the District Court and Circuit Court, there has been an appreciable increase in their volume of business. My Department has decided to review the activity levels of the District Court and Circuit Court in view of the increased volume of business and this report will come to hand shortly. Deputy Batt O'Keeffe is right in saying that the number of district judges is fixed by statute. For this to be increased, reduced — I certainly do not envisage it being reduced — or altered in any way would require amending legislation. That would be a decision to be taken by Government and, if taken by Government, announced in the usual way.
Would the Minister of State accept that there is a huge variation in the amount of work undertaken by district judges, many of them sitting late into the evening in order to finish their schedule for any given day? Would the Minister take into account the fact that some of the younger judges, and indeed the six female judges, appear to have a work rate almost double that of their colleagues, which might be one of the criteria to be taken into account when making additional appointments? Given the increased jurisdiction of the District Court in recent years, would he accept that if we converted minor traffic offences into civil wrongs, simply imposing levies with only disputed cases going to court, this would alleviate some of the pressure on the District Court?
I will certainly examine Deputy Harney's last suggestion. In relation to the variation of work between different district judges, I have to accept that there is a wide variation of work as between different district judges. I am not in a position to divide it as between male and female, but I know there is a wide variation. As I have said, the smooth running of the District Court is a matter for the President of the District Court, it being up to him to arrange for the efficient transaction of business in the District Court. Certainly, I have to accept that there is a variation in workload between district judges.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Would the Minister agree that where bimonthly court sessions take place this can lead to injustice when a case may be adjourned because of a technicality or some such reason. I have one specific case in mind that has stretched over a couple of sittings. Would it not be better to deploy extra judges and hold more regular sittings, bearing in mind that there is such a backlog of work? It is not because there is insufficient work that they meet only every two months.
There are many reasons a case might have to be adjourned from the point of view of one or other party, but I agree with Deputy Browne that justice delayed is justice denied. My aim is to make the most efficient use of our resources. But any increase in the numbers of district judges would require amending legislation, which would be a matter for Government.