Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Apr 1999

Vol. 503 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Court Appointments.

Mr. Allen:

Mr. Thomas Harte was found dead with head injuries in a derelict house at Leitrim Street, Cork city, on 20 May 1997. Gardaí later arrested and charged two men with the murder of Mr. Harte. Mr. Harte's family have been told that because of a backlog of cases at the Central Criminal Court due to a shortage of judges, it will be well into next year before the trial will start.

The family are angry at the delay, saying it is an insult to their dead brother's memory. A family member said: "We are very angry about it. It is as if Thomas's death somehow is not important enough to them. It is obscene. The whole system seems to forget about the family as if it is nothing to them, but it is hugely important to us."

The delay is causing great distress also to the murdered man's mother with whom Thomas lived. The family had prepared themselves for the trial which was due to start last month. They had arranged leave from work to attend the trial, but at short notice the trial was postponed.

This is just another example of the way the public is being treated by the system. Only last weekend we saw High Court cases in Cork and other centres throughout the country cancelled because judges decided to hold a meeting in Dublin on Monday to discuss the implications of the Sheedy case. Other representative organisations would have held their meeting on Saturday or Sunday and would have gone back to work on Monday but not those who made this decision.

Instead the public who had waited lengthy periods for their cases to be listed saw their preparations put to one side because of an arrogant, thoughtless decision by members of the Judiciary. No consideration was given to how that decision would affect the public.

I ask the Minister to appoint a further judge to the Central Criminal Court in order to deal with the dilemma in which the Harte family finds itself. If he indicated tonight that he was addressing this issue, it would relieve much of the distress of the family who asked me to raise this matter. In addition, the Minister must take an active interest to protect the public by bringing about a more efficient judicial system. I know he will give a positive response.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue):

The assignment of judges to hear cases in the Central Criminal Court is a matter for the President of the High Court and I have no function in the matter.

However, in recent years the maximum number of judges who may be appointed to the High Court was increased by three in the Court and Court Officers Act, 1995, by a further three in the Courts Act, 1997, and by one in the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1997. As a result of these legislative measures, three additional judges were appointed to the High Court in 1996 followed by a further three in 1997 and one in 1998.

The need for the appointment of some of these additional judges arose because of the concerns expressed by successive Presidents of the High Court that additional judges were required to deal with the increase in the volume of murder and rape cases coming before the Central Criminal Court. The total number of cases returned for trial to the Central Criminal Court since 1994 has risen from 58 in total to 157 in 1998. This represents an increase of 170 per cent.

Up until 1996 there were two High Court judges available to hear cases in the Central Criminal Court. In 1996, following the appointment of three additional judges to the High Court, this was increased to three and, following the appointment of an additional High Court judge in December 1998, there were four judges available to hear cases in the Central Criminal Court.

In relation to individual trials, the House will appreciate that the courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and it is not open to me to intervene or comment on the conduct of such cases.

However as I know that Deputy Allen is very concerned about this matter, I have had inquiries made and I have been informed that this case was returned for trial in the Central Criminal Court in mid-1998. The case was entered in the first available list to fix dates on 30 July 1998 and a date for trial was fixed for 8 March 1999.

An application to take this case off the list for trial was only made to the court on 26 February 1999. The application was granted and the case was adjourned to the next available list to fix dates on 25 March 1999. On that day a new trial date of 12 January 2000 was fixed which I understand was the earliest available date.

My understanding is that the recent application to adjourn this case arose because of the non-availability of counsel for one of the parties. I am awaiting confirmation that this is so. In such circumstances it is extremely difficult to guarantee that even with an additional court an earlier date for trial could be achieved. I nonetheless empathise with the family of the victim of this crime, who have had to endure the further delay caused by the recent deferral of the trial until January 2000.