Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Mar 1927

Vol. 8 No. 9

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CIRCUIT COURT APPEALS BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

Motion made and question proposed—"That this Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. BROWN

I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill but I would like to say that I object very much on principle to the appointment of temporary judges. I remember when the Judiciary Bill was going through and it was proposed to appoint temporary Circuit Judges for the purpose of clearing off a very large stack of arrears of compensation claims this House objected very strongly to the principle or practice of appointing temporary Circuit Court Judges on the grounds that it really interfered with their independence and that they were not appointments that should be made except under very exceptional circumstances, and they succeeded in putting an amendment into the Judiciary Bill which confined that kind of appointment to the term of three years, which term expired in November or December of last year.

I think it is most objectionable to have Commissioners appointed to try those Circuit Court appeals and put them in the position as if they were High Court Judges. It is common knowledge that the four gentlemen to be appointed to these very important offices are most eminently competent for the work they will have to do. There is no objection of that kind at all, but the principle is one that ought not to be put into practice. I should like, also, to say that sooner or later, it is quite evident the Government will have to reconsider the question of Circuit Court appeals; the present system has virtually broken down. I do not intend to go into this in detail because it would take a longer time than I want to devote to matter which is not quite germane to the debate.

The Government will have to reconsider this question of appeal from the Circuit Courts, and they will have to go back to the old system of sending Commissioners of Assize down to hear these over again and to examine witnesses, or they will have to adopt another system which I think will not give satisfaction in this country, namely, that of having an appeal merely on questions of law. This is hardly germane to the present Bill, and I do not pursue it beyond saying that I think it is a question the Government will have to face.

Mr. DOWDALL

Senator Brown gave voice to opinions that I hold on this matter with very much more knowledge and in a better way than I could do. It is peculiarly objectionable at times like the present to have temporary officers acting as judges, no matter how eminent or well qualified they are in appeals that may come before them from time to time in which the State is an interested party. I see the Minister for Finance here. I am sure he will see how objectionable it is that temporary Commissioners should sit in judgment on compensation claims where the State may be an appellant or may be an interested party. This Bill was pretty exhaustively canvassed and discussed in the Dáil. I do not intend to oppose the Bill to the extent of going to a division, although I have very strong feeling in regard to it. But I hope Senator Brown's word will be taken into consideration, and I think it is perfectly clear that an additional permanent judgeship will have to be instituted and that steps will have to be taken at an early date.

Mr. FARREN

I congratulate Senator Brown and Senator Dowdall on coming round to the view of those opposed to casual employment. I hope they will extend their feelings to other spheres as well as to the legal profession. We have always been opposed to this system of casual employment, and, therefore, we must be opposed to the employment of casual judges. I hope that in the consideration of other questions the same principle will be carried out. What is the need of the Minister coming along at this stage and asking the permission of Parliament to appoint extra judges to clear away a great number of appeals that have accumulated in the courts? According to the statement of the Minister for Justice upon this Bill when it was in the Dáil. there are 520 appeals pending. We often hear talk about bricklayers' output, but we never hear any comment about the lawyers' output, and certainly the output of the people that we have appointed as judges in the court does not appear to be up to the standard when 520 appeals have accumulated since the year 1925.

There is something wrong somewhere. I certainly have always admitted in this House that I do not understand the law, and the more I hear of the law the more puzzled I am getting. Acts of Parliament are drafted by lawyers, and we appoint as judges men who are eminent because of their high proficiency in the legal profession and because they understand the law; that is why we appoint them as judges, but a most extraordinary thing has occurred. Highly skilled legal gentleman are appointed to interpret the law, but apparently when they proceed to hear cases under the Statutes their decisions are questioned so frequently that we have now 520 cases pending on appeal. There is something extraordinary in that. I heard it said one time that he law was framed by lawyers in the interests of lawyers, and when we consider the state of affairs in the courts it seems to have some justification.

Mr. DOUGLAS

Perhaps they are considering our amendments?

Mr. FARREN

If they are it must be remembered that there are whole staffs trained in the law whose duty it is to put our amendments in order. There is a terrible hullabaloo when an unfortunate layman like myself makes a mistake, but several amendments were made in the Courts of Justice Bill by highly-trained legal authorities, and it is under these highly-trained legal authorities that such appeals are pending. There seems to be something wrong when such a Bill as this is needed.

I do not expect the House to accept my views as to what the law should be in this country. I have strange views on this question of the Courts of Justice. If I had my way I would tear down the present structure altogether. Some people would say: "Then, how would you replace it?" My reply is, I would replace it by the old sheriff's law whereby I would appoint one just man in each county to decide the questions and I would let each man state his own case. I think the present system is all wrong. The poor man cannot employ the highly skilled, trained legal mind and has not much chance in the courts. We know the great skill of the lawyers; this country was always famous for great lawyers, and it produced lawyers of wonderful skill. Some people in this world are in a position to employ the highly-skilled, trained gentlemen who can make black white and white black. That is the privilege of the few. I am told by those who understand the position, that there is great confusion and great inconvenience because of the accumulation of these arrears. I think anything that the House can do in these circumstances to assist the Minister for Justice in getting the business of the Courts into a proper state and giving him the opportunity of appointing somebody who will wipe off those arrears and help the business community to carry on their operations, should be done. These appeals are principally connected with business matters, and having said so much I could not offer any solid objection or refuse to give the facilities which are necessary for the carrying on of the business of the country.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was stated by Senator Farren that the Minister for Justice said in the Dáil upon this Bill that there were 520 appeals pending, going back to the days of 1925. That represents the facts, but, of course, it must be remembered that there were certain abnormal circumstances in connection with the setting up of the courts. There is no ground whatever for believing that the arrears that now exist when cleared off will again be found to accumulate. Senator Farren having confessed that he does not know much about the wiles and the subtleties of the law, may not know that a considerable proportion of these 520 appeals will be bogus appeals, and that possibly not more than 300 out of the 520 will ever come to hearing. It is our belief that the four gentlemen that it is proposed to appoint, sitting in pairs, will be able to clear off the arrears long before the Long Vacation is upon us. Senator Brown has spoken about putting a limit on the term of office, but that is one of the points that will arise on Committee.

Nobody looks on this as an ideal solution. There were practical difficulties to be faced, and one must take the best way out. There were two courses open to us. The other was to increase the personnel of the High Court, but the Minister for Justice is not convinced that these arrears will ever again accumulate. He has not been convinced, therefore, that the appointment of an additional judge or judges is necessary. That being so, the only way to deal with the problem was to create these temporary appointments. These temporary appointments cannot be regarded as in their nature sound or good. If Senator Brown wishes to bring forward an amendment as to the limitation of the period for which these judges should be appointed, or the time that they should be allowed to continue in office, that amendment can be considered on Committee.

I have referred to new circumstances. The new circumstance referred to by the Minister for Justice is that the Central Criminal Court, in which a considerable amount of arrears had accumulated, is now working off these arrears at top speed, and the arrears have been very definitely cut in on. There is also the fact that a certain amount of the vacation of the judges has been cut off. Fifteen days have been cut off the long vacation. There has also been the appointment of a master who does the work formerly done by a judge so that, on the whole, there is good reason to believe that the arrears are being wiped out, and that we shall never see an accumulation again such as exists at present. If there be an accumulation in the future, one might say that that would be a prima facie case for some reconsideration of the whole system, but nothing that has been said or observed, from the days of the passing of the Courts of Justice Act, has convinced the Government that there is any necessity for going back on the Courts of Justice Act, which was founded on the report of a committee of very distinguished lawyers—people who had experience of the working of the courts in the past and who knew what was going to happen in the future. I would ask the Seanad to give a Second Reading to this Bill recognising that it is a temporary way of meeting a temporary difficulty which will not occur again.

Mr. BRADY

I should not have intervened in this discussion were it not for the closing remarks of the Minister, in which he referred to the report of the Judiciary Committee, of which you, sir, were Chairman. That Committee examined all the legal problems, and made certain recommendations which were embodied in the Act of 1924, but I would like to take this opportunity of assuring the Minister that it is the opinion of those who have experience of the working of the Act, that, at an early date, some amendment of it will be necessary. I unfortunately had not the advantage of hearing the opening remarks of Senator Brown, but I may state now, as a representative of the solicitor's profession, that I am assured officially that the present Bill will merely prove a stop-gap remedy and that if the Act of 1924 be not amended such Bills will become recurrent. The Minister holds that this Bill will result in all these appeals being heard and disposed of and that there will be no recurrence of such a state of things as exists to-day, but my information is that that is not so, and that notwithstanding the disposal of these 520 appeals this state of things will continue to exist and that the Ministry will be faced with the absolute necessity of appointing an additional judge, or judges, later on. Representations have also been made to me as to the desirability on the hearing of appeals of taking evidence, viva voce, rather than on shorthand notes. There again it would be out of order to discuss that matter now, but I think the experience we have already gained of the evidence taken on shorthand notes is such as to lead us very strongly to the view that we will have to go back to the old system. I have no intention of opposing the Second Reading, but I take this opportunity of assuring the Minister that his sanguine views will not be borne out by experience.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I should like to ask the Minister if the length of the long vacation and hours of sitting are prescribed by the Rules of Court? I remember the Rules of Court, and I do not think that there was any reference to those matters in them.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is all fixed in the Rules of Court—not merely the length of the various vacations but the number of vacations and also the hours of sitting and so forth.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.