I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing a debate on this matter on the Adjournment. I am very conscious of the sensitivities involved here. There is a serious case still before the courts and I certainly have no views on the guilt or innocence of the accused person nor do I intend to comment in any way on any of the evidence heard by the court.
However, it is a matter of the utmost concern that a major trial of this nature should have been caused to collapse, reportedly because discussions of the jury could be overheard in the public gallery of the court. This was the ninth day of this major trial. One can only guess at the cost in terms of the time of the lawyers, court officials, gardaí and others, money which has now been effectively wasted as a result of this incident. The time and commitment of the members of the jury have – through no fault of their own – also been wasted.
I accept that the judge acted properly in dis charging the jury and probably had no alternative once the matter was drawn to her attention. However, it is alarming that this could have happened; the danger of it happening should have been foreseen and it is absolutely essential that steps should be taken to ensure it never happens again.
The confidentiality of the jury room is sacrosanct. It is already difficult to get people to serve on juries; what chance will there be to get people to serve if they fear that the views they express in the jury room could be overheard? In the recent past there has been a number of very high profile jury trials involving senior gangland figures on serious charges. If the deliberations had been overheard in a case like that it would have left identifiable jury members open to threats, intimidation or even retribution. Of course, we have no way of knowing for certain whether discussions of previous juries may have been overheard.
From what we know of the circumstances of this case, it appears that a fire door was installed in the jury room which opened on to the public gallery. The gallery was apparently only being used because of the particular interest in this case and it was only then that it was discovered conversations could be overheard. Surely it should be standard procedure that where alterations are made to a jury room, tests are carried out to check if the changes have had any impact on the security of the room.
This incident again highlights the totally inadequate condition of many of our courtrooms. The Four Courts is a magnificent building to look at with a wonderfully impressive Round Hall, but the conditions in many of the individual courtrooms are Dickensian. During this particular case there was considerable comment about the discomfort in the courtroom caused by the heat due to overcrowding. There was a power cut in the Four Courts complex shortly before Christmas as a result of the overloading of the electricity supply and a distinguished High Court judge subsequently announced that he was going home and was going to stay there because there was no heating in his chambers.
The Four Courts is in the luxury category compared to some court buildings around the country. Leaking, draughty, insanitary and rodent infested buildings are too much the norm. The Court Services Board is still in its infancy. It has impressive plans to improve the efficiency of the courts, including improving the flow of information through the Internet, but one of its first priorities must be to embark on an intensive programme of improvement of courtrooms and court buildings.
This case also focuses attention on the way jurors are treated. Being asked to determine guilt or innocence in serious criminal cases is an enormous burden to carry. We should at a minimum try to ensure that they are allowed to do their duty in conditions of safety and comfort.
It is getting difficult to get people to serve on juries. This is understandable. Jurors can be asked to commit several weeks of their time. It can lead to disruption of personal lives and cause work problems. Those who can avoid jury service usually do so. This is not desirable as it can lead to juries who are not representative of society generally.
I have spoken to people who served on juries in the Central Criminal Court who said that when they were called for the initial jury empanelling, hundreds of potential jurors were crammed into a tiny courtroom waiting to see if their names would be called. People who would be later called to serve on a jury were in some cases crammed up against people they would later be trying. In another case I was told of jury members being put into a tiny room which was already crammed full of boxes of dusty documents and filing cabinets, where they had to spend long hours – not just when they were making their decision but also during prolonged legal arguments in their absence. At least jurors in criminal cases get their lunch at the expense of the State. Those serving as jurors in civil cases do not even get the price of a bag of crisps.
Finally, I ask the Minister to ensure that a full investigation is held into how this particular incident was allowed to happen; that steps are taken to ensure it never happens again; that a review of all courts and jury rooms is carried out and that we look at the way in which we treat jury members.
