Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 2

Courts Bill, 1997 [ Seanad ]: Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When I became Minister for Justice I was acutely aware of the need for reform of our courts system. A full reappraisal of where the courts stood and where the system was going had been long overdue. A fresh approach was badly needed. A vastly increased volume of civil actions, family law business and criminal cases over a number of years had meant that the entire courts system was under considerable strain. The most serious and immediate problem was, of course, the delays in the hearing of actions and appeals at all levels of the courts system. This adversely affected litigants, victims of crime, the business sector and the community as a whole.

The first major step I took to turn around this unsatisfactory state of affairs was to introduce and secure the enactment of the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995. That Act provided for a total increase of 18 in the statutory maximum limit of judges — three in the Supreme Court, three in the High Court, seven in the Circuit Court and five in the District Court. All but three of those extra judges have been appointed. The 1995 Act contained other innovative reforms that improved the position considerably, for example, by enabling the Supreme Court to sit in two divisions which could hear appeals simultaneously and by giving the Master of the High Court and county registrars the power to deal with business that previously only judges could handle.

Last summer I brought forward the Courts Bill, 1996, to increase the maximum statutory limit on the number of judges of the Circuit Court by a further three to 28 judges, including the President of the Circuit Court. The Courts Act, 1996, and the 1995 Act, provided for an additional ten Circuit Court judges, that is, an increase of more than 50 per cent in the number of judges of that court. Developments in the family law area and changes to the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts in 1991 had a major impact on the volume and complexity of business coming before the courts system as a whole, but this affected the Circuit Court in particular.

The implementation of divorce legislation is likely to impact further on the volume of business, particularly in the Circuit Court. It is not yet possible to assess its long-term requirements for judicial and staffing resources but in the shortterm it is expected there will be a considerable number of applications to the courts. My Department is currently in touch with the Department of Finance regarding the provision of additional staff in this regard. If a continuing upward trend becomes apparent I assure the House the Government will look at the need for additional judges and staff in that specific context.

The appointment of additional judges has enabled the President of the High Court to arrange additional sittings of the Central Criminal Court and the President of the Circuit Court to arrange additional sittings of the Circuit Courts, in particular in areas where delays were acute. Alongside my legislative programme, this development has had a significant effect on the backlog of cases before those courts. My strategy has been to combine the allocation of additional judicial resources with practical legislative and administrative reforms to quickly equip the courts system with the means to make inroads on delays in hearing cases and appeals.

This strategy has produced excellent results. The existing backlogs in the courts are well on the way to being cleared. For example, in the Dublin Circuit Court I understand new litigants in civil cases can now obtain a court date within six weeks of the lodgement of their cases. This compares with a delay of two years last July. In family law cases in the Dublin Circuit Court the delay has been reduced from 16 months to four months and now there are no delays in the hearing of criminal cases in the Dublin Circuit Court.

Delays in the hearing of personal injury actions in the High Court have been reduced from 35 months to 20 months and delays in the hearing of cases in the Central Criminal Court have been reduced to as low as six months in some cases. There is still room for improvement, particularly in personal injuries actions, but the reduction in delays from 35 months to 20 months in a very short space of time is welcome. There have been similar substantial reductions in delays in the hearing of cases in the provincial Circuit Court. To give just one example, delays in the hearing of civil cases in Galway have been reduced from two years to as low as three months and delays in the hearing of family law cases which had been up to six months have been eliminated. The vast majority of provincial Circuit Court venues have experienced this pattern of reductions in the level of delays in hearing cases.

A major step has been taken to reform the courts system with the establishment of the working group on a courts commission which I set up at the end of 1995, chaired by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, to review the operation and financing of the courts system with particular regard to the quality of service provided to the public. I also asked the group to consider the matter of the establishment of a commission on the management of the courts as an independent and permanent body with financial and management autonomy in line with the commitment to that effect in the programme A Government of Renewal.

Last November the Government approved the recommendation in the working group's third report, Towards the Courts Service, to the effect that steps be taken as a matter of urgency to legislate for a courts service as an independent and permanent body and accorded priority to the drafting of this Bill. The legislation required to enable the new courts service to be established is being dealt with as a priority within my Department and this measure will be published as soon as possible.

The working group is continuing its work on the review of the day to day operation of the courts system and it will submit further reports to me as appropriate. This is valuable work and I take this opportunity to again thank Mrs. Justice Denham and the other members of the working group for the very important work they have undertaken in this area. This strategy for the longer term development of the courts system is crucial. As I said in other venues, too many sticking plasters have been put on the courts system over the years. The Government is now taking a fresh and long-term look at the courts and, with the help of Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, we will have a more effective courts system when the new courts structure is set up.

Another major area of concern with regard to the courts, which I am actively addressing, is the standard of court accommodation. A major courts building programme has been drawn up and a number of works are under way throughout the country. I am aware that, despite the work done in recent years, the standard of much of the court accommodation around the country is seriously inadequate and fails to provide the facilities necessary for persons using the courts. I have obtained nearly £7 million from the Government this year to carry out capital projects and a further £1.6 million for maintenance projects, totalling about £8.5 million. This is the largest amount to be allocated in one year since financial responsibility for courthouses was transferred to the Exchequer in March 1990 and is an indication of the Government's commitment to provide modern court accommodation which is necessary for the effective discharge of court business.

Up to 1990 responsibility to keep court premises in good condition rested with local authorities, which for various reasons neglected their duty in that regard perhaps because of lack of finance or pressure for spending on other purposes. There is now a programme in place and this year I received the largest amount of money ever to progress that programme of renovation and rebuilding. Over the next month or so new courthouses will be provided at the former Riverbank Theatre and the former Richmond Hospital, at Carrick-on-Shannon and Naas. Work on the building of a new courthouse in Tallaght has just commenced and major projects in Ennis, Listowel, Longford, Trim and Cork city will also get under way this year.

Deputies will be aware of the recent Government decisions to appoint two judges of the High Court, Ms Justice Mella Carroll to the Nursing Commission and Mr. Justice Brian McCracken to the Dunnes Stores Tribunal. These developments will, naturally, have implications for the existing judicial resources in the High Court, and that is the background to this Bill. I would be most concerned if the progress already made in reducing delays in hearing criminal and civil cases before the High Court were adversely affected by the appointment, albeit temporary, to other duties of the two judges I have mentioned.

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the statutory limit on the number of judges of the High Court, not including the President of the High Court, from 19, as set by the Courts and Court Officers Act, 1995, to 22. This will be raised to 23 where one of the judges of the High Court is appointed to the position of commissioner in the Law Reform Commission, which is a standard provision. It is my intention that one new judge should be appointed to the High Court as soon as the Bill has been enacted. The Bill takes account, therefore, of the need for possible future increases that may be required in the number of High Court judges. That approach makes much better sense than legislating to increase the complement of judges on an ad hoc basis on each occasion that an additional judge might be required. Urgent circumstances could arise in the future which would require the appointment of an additional High Court judge. This Bill means that it will be possible to respond to such a need without having to bring forward another Courts Bill.

Tackling immediate problems and implementing a longer term development strategy for the courts are key priorities for me as Minister for Justice. The reforms I have already put in place and ongoing reforms will ensure that the courts will have the capacity in future to respond effectively to the demands placed on them. This commitment of resources and longer term planning is vital for the operation of an efficient system of justice and that is a standard the public is entitled to expect and which I am confident my reforms will deliver. The Bill which is being debated here today is a significant measure that will enable the great progress that has been achieved in the operation of our courts system to be maintained and developed further. I commend it to the House.

When I introduced the legislation in the Seanad I was heartened that two lawyers from the Opposition had the good grace to agree the position in the courts has improved greatly in recent times. They commended the speed with which court cases are currently being heard.

We welcome the Bill. However, while additional judges have been appointed, the backlog in the courts has not decreased. The Government has done nothing to decrease it. On 1 October 1995, before the new judges were appointed, there were 51 cases involving rape, murder and aggravated sexual assault before the Central Criminal Court. On 1 October 1996, after the new judges had been appointed, there were 65 cases awaiting hearing in the Central Criminal Court. While we welcome the new appointments, the Minister must examine the organisation of the Judiciary. When new judges are appointed one expects the backlog to diminish rather than increase by 14 cases. The judges who have been appointed deal with civil rather than criminal cases. Given the current crime statistics, that is not what they should be required to do. Perhaps the Minister would examine those statistics before replying to the debate.

As a lay person I often wonder why the Judiciary, like most other professions, does not hold an annual or biannual congress to deal with difficulties that arise in the courts system. The Garda, nurses, farmers, teachers and bishops meet on an annual or biannual basis in the interest of their professions and to ensure consistency in the matters with which they deal.

Fianna Fáil believes the organisation, administration and financing of the courts must be reappraised. We will implement the report of the Courts Commission with particular reference to the establishment of an independent courts service. We also believe current court procedures are cumbersome and slow. There is an unacceptable delay in processing cases, some of which can take up to 18 months. Such delays serve the interests of neither the defence nor the prosecution. We need a fast-track prosecution system. The number of court appearances must be reduced to permit trials to take place within three rather than 18 months.

To achieve this, Fianna Fáil proposes that the system of preliminary examination should be abolished and instead, at the first appearance, an inquiry should take place into whether the matter should be dealt with on indictment. If it is dealt with on indictment it should be referred directly to the court of trial and the trial should proceed within 90 days of arrest. This would involve reform of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967. Cases involving certain serious crimes should be heard within 90 days.

When in Government Fianna Fáil will establish special family courts to deal with family law cases and commence a programmed national courts refurbishment scheme. It will also recognise that court delays often derive from the way in which the court calendar is organised. That should be reorganised for more efficient dispatch of business.

Increased staff must be provided to service these additional sittings and, in particular, the number of registrars must be increased. Fianna Fáil believes there is scope for modifying the approach to the giving of evidence. We will remove the necessity for oral evidence to be given by purely formal witnesses. We propose to establish a witness protection programme similar to that operated by EUROPOL. In conjunction with this, we will provide a statutory basis for plea bargaining and establish a specialist section in the Department of Justice with a brief to provide an ongoing statistical backup for the courts.

The role of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board is merely advisory. Its purpose is defined in the Courts and Courts Officers Act as identifying persons and informing the Government of their suitability for appointment to judicial office. In November 1995 Deputy O'Donoghue said the Minister for Justice had radically altered the composition of that board. It was no longer deemed appropriate for the chairman of the Law Reform Commission to serve as a member. Instead, the Minister proposed the appointment of the Attorney General — the general law officer of the Government — to the board. If he were not appointed to the board, the holder of that office could provide a more independent role in assisting with such appointments.

Fianna Fáil has a proven track record of having staffed the Bench with numerous lawyers with affiliations to other political parties. That was the case for all the courts. Unfortunately, that commendable attitude has not applied to the Minister's party while in office.

Does the Deputy want me to give him names?

Despite what the Minister might say, it is a case of more jobs for the boys. The Courts and Court Officers Bill, originally introduced by Fianna Fáil, would have operated impartially. The Bill eventually introduced by the Minister killed the spirit of the original Fianna Fáil Bill. The new Government's version of the Bill was designed to load the dice in favour of the Government's carefully selected nominees for judicial office.

On a point of order, as the body to whom the Deputy referred comprises the Chief Justice and the presidents of the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court, an allegation that it is carrying out its work in a less than impartial manner should not remain on the record.

I did not observe a personal imputation. I take it the Deputy is making political charges.

That is true. I would not impinge on the independence of that board. It is an extraordinary coincidence that the people appointed to the board support the parties of the Rainbow Coalition. It seems even more extraordinary that two solicitors, both of whom belong to Democratic Left and one of whom is a former Democratic Left Deputy, were appointed to the Circuit Court.

I ask the Deputy not to refer to persons in such a manner as to identify them.

That is disgraceful. The Deputy should be careful because I can quote him chapter and verse.

So much for impartiality. I wish to share my time with Deputy Lenihan.

Only one hour has been provided for this debate. I am anxious to hear Deputy O'Donnell, so I will call Deputy Lenihan if time permits.

I welcome this Bill in the same way that the Progressive Democrats have welcomed other legislation to reform the courts. The courts service is the Cinderella of the justice system, not only in terms of the allocation of resources but also the time and attention given to it by legislators. As the Minister said, the cumulative effect of more judges means that serious inroads have been made into the backlog, particularly in relation to the processing of civil litigation. Delays which had been legion and, in many cases, defied belief have been reduced, particularly in the civil lists.

As regards criminal trials, any improvement in the backlog of cases is a double-edged sword because of the lack of prison spaces. If we start to free up the wheels of the criminal justice system, more people will be committed to Mountjoy. However, because of a shortage of space, other convicted offenders will be released to make room for them.

There are three legs in the criminal justice system. The first is the enforcement of the law — there was much debate recently about zero tolerance — the second is an efficient courts service to process criminal trials and the third is an efficiently run prison service. I know the Minister has made every effort, with the limited resources available to her, to provide 120 or 130 more prison places over the past year, but there is still a chronic shortage of space in our prison service for convicted persons. The courts are sentencing people who are serving a short time in jail or no time at all, as happened recently when a person was sentenced to a year in prison and was allowed out after one day. Such action sets at naught all the efforts to improve the criminal justice system. This cannot be allowed to continue. We often hear about people who have been sentenced to Mountjoy but who are allowed out after one or two days because of a lack of space. However, we should not be tempted to accept that in our criminal justice system because it is a scandal.

Some improvement has been made in the civil lists which will be welcomed by individual litigants, the legal profession, the business community and insurance companies. Delays added to the cost of civil litigation and, in many cases, caused unnecessary trauma for individual litigants and witnesses who were called back to court time after time because cases were adjourned. I congratulate the Minister on her success in this regard, although I am still concerned about the operation of the criminal justice system because of the shortage of prison spaces.

As regards family courts, it is appropriate for the Minister to increase the maximum statutory limit for High Court judges. One High Court judge has been appointed to the Dunnes tribunal and another, Ms Justice Mella Carroll, to the Nursing Commission. It is appropriate to legislate for the appointment of further High Court judges. There will be a demand for more judges now that the divorce legislation has been enacted.

In a recent report on the family law courts, the Law Reform Commission referred to what is described as "the negative ethos of the court system as it currently operates in the area of family law". It continued:

Instead of concentrating on the empowerment of individuals to resolve their own family disputes by encouraging negotiation and agreement, the emphasis of our system, with its concentration on adjudication, is on solutions which take control away from the participants. A humane system of family law is one which encourages the responsible resolution and management of disputes wherever possible by members of the family themselves. Judicial intervention is, of course, necessary to prevent exploitation or abuse between family members. The ideal of empowerment should not blind us to the problems of inequality which may arise in a system of private ordering. This apart, it is perhaps time to consider how reforms in our legal process may help in the process of family empowerment.

One of the key recommendations of the commission is the establishment of a system of regional family courts based in 15 centres around the country, operating as a separate division of the Circuit Court and presided over by judges nominated to serve for a period of at least one year who are assigned on the basis of their suitability to deal with family law matters. This is important in terms of the Minister's ongoing efforts to improve the judicial system as it applies to the courts. Much has been and will be achieved if the recommendations of the Courts Commission are put in place. The report of the courts commission was before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security recently and, rather than delay matters by debating it at length, we decided to note the report and send it back to the Minister so there would be no delay in getting on with the business of establishing the independent courts service which will mark a huge change in the administration of the courts.

One further aspect which I want to raise with the Minister relates to the proposal by the Director of Public Prosecutions for a unified prosecution service. Many pre-trial delays in the criminal prosecution service relate to what he called duplications and delays which arise as a result of splitting the responsibility for the decision making aspect of running cases. The DPP deals with decision making and instructs the Chief State Solicitor to run cases but inevitably delays occur because of the separation of the two functions. There has been a proposal for a unified prosecution service and perhaps the Minister will indicate if that proposal is being considered.

Recently a confidential report, which was leaked and subsequently published, revealed great inadequacies in the administration of the Chief State Solicitor's Office and I am glad to note that additional attention has been given to the obvious need for a change in the management structure of that office to guard against a panorama of doom outlined in the consultants' report. They pointed to great dangers facing the State because the Chief State Solicitor's Office was determined not to be fit for its purpose as it was inadequately resourced and had poor management structures in place over a long period.

All of these matters are very important. It is important to rectify administrative and structural defects in the criminal justice system and procedural delays which are not beyond resolution. Reform of some of these important aspects does not require legislation. I am glad that the Strategic Management Initiative encompasses all institutions and public offices, including the Chief State Solicitor's Office, the DPP's Office and the Department of Justice because in the past many of these things were hidden from view. There is an accountability deficit as far as such matters are concerned. I am not happy about that but at least there has been some review of the operations of those offices and that can only be for the betterment of the criminal justice system.

I support this Bill which allows the ceiling to be raised and the appointment of three more High Court judges.

Fianna Fáil welcomes this short measure which enables the Government to advise the President to appoint three additional High Court judges, raising the statutory number, as the Minister said, to 22 or 23 in the event that a judge of the High Court occupies the position of President of the Law Reform Commission.

The reason given by the Minister for the immediate appointment of a judge is a good one — two judges are deployed on work in connection with the resolution of the nursing dispute and the tribunal of inquiry into the payments by Dunnes Stores to which the Price Waterhouse report refers. However, in justifying an increase of three appointments, the Minister said that urgent circumstances could arise in the future which would require the appointment of an additional High Court judge. As a matter of abstract principle, I would have been interested in the Minister expanding on that somewhat. I ask her to give the House an undertaking that those urgent circumstances will not arise on the departure of the present Administration in a few weeks time and that the period following the dissolution of this House, the consequent general election and the time which elapses under our constitutional arrangements between polling day and the formation of a new Government, which as we all know from recent years can be quite lengthy, will not be one in which urgent circumstances arise. There is a suspicion abroad that this measure is an attempt to provide for making appointments in the event of the departure of the present Administration. The Minister is in a position to assure the House that is not the intention.

I was interested by the intervention of the Minister earlier in the debate on the question of the judicial appointments commission. I was not a Member of the House at the time but I should declare my interest as a member of the Bar. I was interested in the measure because I saw a fundamental constitutional undesirability in the establishment of that commission and the Minister's intervention highlighted it. I do not mean to criticise the Minister personally but judges are now being brought into the process of the appointment of other judges. That is a very undesirable development because judges are there to administer justice and not to partake in Executive decisions relating to the appointment of judges.

We all know that the circumstances which led to the departure of the last Government surrounded the appointment of a judge and the Minister, representing the collective emanation of the Government, is responsible to this House in connection with any matter regarding the appointment of a judge. It seems undesirable if the Opposition seeks to criticise some issue relating to the appointment of judges, as Deputy McDaid did, that the Minister says that is a slight on the Judiciary. Of course, that cannot be the case. Under the Constitution, as the Minister will be well aware, the appointment of judges is a matter reserved to the Government and the Government is responsible to this House for these appointments.

As I understand it, the commission has been established simply to filter lists which the Minister then presents to the Government so, in effect, the procedure is that the Government makes the selection. It might have been much more desirable to make it clear in the original legislation that this was really only a certification procedure where one needed a clean bill of health from this committee before one could be considered for appointment as a judge by the Government. That, as I understand it, is the substance of the new procedure. I welcome the fact that advertisements are placed in the public press or The Legal Diary inviting applicants to apply for these appointments so that at least they can have their suitability assessed by this committee prior to a Government decision, but the actual decision on an appointment remains a political one vested in the Government.

I made the point about the undesirability of judges being involved in the procedure. I realise this was something which the Tánaiste negotiated with the former Taoiseach at a military aerodrome but the fact remains that advocates should be independent in the performance of their functions before the courts and it is not desirable that they can be inhibited or that a judge decides on the suitability of particular advocates for appointment. That is my view. I know it was not advanced vigorously by my party at the time but I am glad of the opportunity to record that view now as I thought it was an undesirable development for the legal profession. Judges have important work to do in adjudicating cases, not in connection with the selection of people who should take their place or sit beside them on the bench.

With regard to the procedure itself, the general view of the profession is that the Act has not changed the fundamental principles on which appointments have always been made and the general practices of Governments in that regard have not changed.

There is merit in the idea that appointees should have some political experience. My experience as an advocate has been that, by and large, judges who have had political experience have been very humane and talented and have had a good insight into the human condition. We should not be hard on ourselves. We should accept that persons of political experience should not be disqualified or debarred by virtue of that from judicial appointment. Deputy McDaid's point related to how the Government had exercised its functions under the Constitution and that matter can be raised in the House.

It would be churlish of me not to concede there has been considerable improvement in the various court lists. I have been impressed by the improvements in the operation of the Supreme Court where there were great delays. The splitting of the Supreme Court into two divisions has been successful and is a permanent improvement in the system of justice in the State. The assimilation of the Court of Criminal Appeal into the Supreme Court has rationalised and greatly improved the system of appeals from the High Court and the Circuit Criminal Court and I welcome that improvement. The Supreme Court is substantially up to date and that is a welcome development.

On the criminal side, Deputy McDaid highlighted a problem that seems to persist in the Central Criminal Court and I would be obliged if the Minister would investigate it. There is a problem of delays in that court's business. The most serious offences proceed on indictment to the Central Criminal Court. As the Minister indicated, there has been considerable improvement in the Circuit Criminal Court.

I wish to comment on a the matter I raised before, that of district courthouse provision in the greater Dublin area. The old practice of ensuring a district courthouse was located near a local police station was desirable. A vast amount of Garda time in Dublin is wasted commuting from suburban areas to city centre district courthouses. While a great number of district courthouses were constructed in the centre city area adjacent to the principal court buildings, there is a strong case for the provision of district courthouses throughout the suburbs for the disposal of criminal business. The Minister mentioned the development of a courthouse at Tallaght. Tallaght appears to be a pioneer case for new developments of this kind in the suburbs. The infrastructure in other suburban districts requires that improvement. The three suburban county areas of Dublin now have a greater population than the county borough area, yet the number of district courthouses in those areas is very small compared to the number of district courthouses in the city centre.

Deputy O'Donnell made the point that with the introduction of divorce legislation there will be a considerable increase in the volume of business transacted on the matrimonial side. The Law Reform Commission put forward proposals that would require considerable time and attention of the House to implement. There are a number of hardship cases we discussed during the referendum debate. They need an expeditious remedy, but that is not available because of the delay. Is there a fast-track procedure that could be provided under the court rules or legislation to give certain cases priority where an individual requires an urgent remedy? There has been a great improvement in the Circuit Court in Dublin and the civil list has been expedited substantially.

On the circuit side, I wish to raise a matter that is the subject of reports but that does not strictly relate to the Bill — that of an increase in the jurisdiction of the court. It has been suggested that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court will be increased further. The successive increases in the jurisdiction in recent years have exceeded general inflationary pressures. There may be a case for another increase. Has the Minister any proposals in that regard?

I wish to raise another matter relating to the Circuit Court that is unsatisfactory and requires examination — the appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court on the civil side. On the criminal side, a transcript is produced and an appeal is made to the Supreme Court, but on the civil side when a Circuit Court judge hears a case the appeal is by way of a full rehearing before a High Court judge. There was a long debate about that in the Free State in the 1920s. At one stage there was a different arrangement when there was a written record and appeal by way of a written note but that was found to be unsatisfactory and the rule that applied to the county court in British times was restored to provide for an appeal by way of complete rehearing. There is a view among witnesses and lawyers that witnesses like to have two bites of the cherry; they like to have their case heard twice. I have always thought it an unsatisfactory arrangement on appeal to have a complete rehearing of a case a second time. When one judge is dealing with a case and it is appealed to another judge, there is not a predictable outcome and that is an unsatisfactory aspect of Circuit Court procedure. I do not know if the Minister has considered that matter. Perhaps she could refer it to Mrs. Justice Denham. With modern recording devices, it may be possible in a few years' time to generate cheaply a record of Circuit Court civil proceedings which could be reviewed on appeal as a transcript rather than have an appeal by way of a complete rehearing.

Deputy O'Donnell mentioned the unified prosecution service. Far be it for me to introduce a rift between our two parties, but one should be careful of building too large an empire in any quarter of the legal establishment. The experience in England has been of a substantial increase in costs caused by the development of a unified prosecution service there and it is a matter that is under review.

My party welcomes the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on the improvements that have taken place in regard to the court lists and I urge her to take action where further action is required.

I thank Members for their support for this Bill and their comments about the improvements in the courts. Deputy McDaid raised the issue of the Central Criminal Court and I said the delays were reduced to six months. I did not say there were none. There are still delays. Deputy McDaid claimed there were 51 cases on 1 October 1995 and 65 cases on the list on 1 October 1996. Because of the mechanism of advertising for applications and their consideration, etc., the appointment of the additional High Court judges was not made until mid-1996 or thereabouts and the effect of their appointment did not have any impact by 1 October, the start of the court term. I am not surprised the number of cases on the list was of that order. Our aim is to reduce the waiting time for cases to be heard in that court and to ensure a backlog of cases does not build up in that court again.

Deputy Lenihan made the point that the Bill allows for the appointment of three High Court judges and I said we would appoint one when the Bill is passed. However, the Deputy need not fear, I have nothing in mind in regard to urgent business. In 1995 when I increased the number of High Court judges by three that was considered a worthy increase, but because of the backlog of cases the Government decided to make those appointments immediately to deal with the backlog. I had thought that in 1995 we might have been able to keep one of those appointments in reserve for a time we might need to make one, but we needed to make the three appointments then. Ms Justice Mella Carroll is doing a job that will take a year to complete and it is difficult to say how long Mr. Justice Brian McCracken will be away from court, but he should not be away for anywhere near a year. That is why I asked the Government to approve the appointment of one judge to fill the temporary vacancy left by Ms Justice Mella Carroll. The Government will monitor the position as to the availability of Mr. Justice Brian McCracken.

It is possible a High Court judge could be involved in an accident but would not have to give up his or her job. However, that person may be unavailable for a year if severely paralysed, for example, and need time to recuperate. The President of the High Court may decide it is necessary to appoint another judge. Deputy Lenihan will know that some time ago the Government decided not to continue the practice of temporary appointments to the courts because it was found unsatisfactory. If a judge is unavailable for a year, it would be appropriate for a Government to appoint another judge and in doing so, may decide not to fill the next vacancy if it believes the court is large enough. I have nothing more sinister in mind.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of the family law courts. Mrs. Justice Susan Denham is examining the Law Reform Commission's report on family law in the course of her work with the Courts Commission. A major courts refurbishment programme is under way. This programme includes the provision of family law court facilities. Shortly, we will have a network of major court development. An integral part of that development will be a completely self-contained family law suite where family law cases may be heard. Separate family law facilities are available in Athlone, Arklow, Bray, Cork District Court complex, Donegal, Dungarvan, Enniscorthy, Galway, Kilkenny, Loughrea, Waterford, Ballina, Ballinasloe, Clonmel and the District, Circuit and High Courts in Dublin. These facilities will be provided in Naas and Carrick-on-Shannon shortly. We have begun to make great improvements. I visited a number of these suites where there are separate rooms for the two sides in a family case and facilities for looking after babies and making coffee. These facilities are needed in traumatic family law cases, are progressing well and will make a difference to our courts system.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to improving facilities in the courts and ensuring cases are heard more quickly and said this would mean more people being sentenced by the courts. I did not deny this would not be a problem when the building of new prison spaces was taking place. The only alternative was to maintain the slow pace in the courts which would ensure people going through the courts did not require prison places. A considerable number of people are going through our courts. By the end of the year, a substantial number of prison places will be available. Next year a 400 place remand prison will be available which will free up places in prisons.

On family law, the concept of nominating judges is practised in the Dublin area where Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness was appointed to deal with such cases.

I have no proposals to extend the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Given its present jurisdiction, and the additional family law work expected, I would like to defer any consideration of extending its jurisdiction. On gardaí commuting to the city centre for District Court cases, there are District Courts around Dublin and two in my constituency, in Balbriggan and Swords. We recently turned the sod for a District Court in Tallaght. The issue of gardaí having to be in court is being dealt with under the criminal justice Bill. Under that Bill gardaí will be able to give evidence through certificate and prisoners may be brought to the District Court nearest to them for remand hearings thus reducing the need to send gardaí long distances.

The Judicial Advisory Appointments Board was included in a Fianna Fáil-Labour Bill published around the time the last Government broke up in late 1994. It was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister for Justice. The Constitution requires the Government to make recommendations for appointments to the courts to the President. People will know from talk in the Law Library that there were many applications for District Court and Circuit Court appointments. The board is able to consider the qualifications of applicants, the expertise required and make recommendations to the Government. It is then a matter for the Government to decide.

I would not like to mix it with Deputy McDaid about the political affiliations of any appointments over the years. However, he should look at some recent appointments. He may assess their politics but, perhaps, they were apolitical. Appointments this and previous Governments made have stood the test of time by the quality of judges. It would be wrong for us to get into a slagging match about who belonged to what party because we could match it with Fianna Fáil which has boasted about being in Government for 50 of the 70 years the State has been in existence. The Deputy will find more judges were appointed under the stewardship of his party. The qualifications of those who have applied to the Judicial Advisory Appointments Board can be checked.

I am happy this legislation is going through the House today. As a famous French scientist said, you never get credit or notice for what you have done, only notice for what you have not done. There will always be something to be done in the justice system. That is part and parcel of the job. I am glad we are taking this action today before any delays build up because of the temporary transfer of two judges from the High Court. I thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and passed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann accordingly.

Top
Share