Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1979

Vol. 92 No. 7

Courts Bill, 1979: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. D. Andrews)

This short Bill proposes an increase from nine to 12 in the statutory number of ordinary judges of the High Court. It takes account of the fact that by virtue of the provisions of section 14 of the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, the number of such judges may, in certain circumstances, be one more. However, since no High Court judge is currently a member of the Law Reform Commission the provisions of the section in question do not affect the High Court at the present time.

The appointment of additional judges of the High Court, as provided for in section 1 of the Bill, is necessary because of the increased volume of business coming before that court in recent years, coupled with the fact that the court is, in effect, short of one judge, because the full time of one judge has been for some time, and still is, taken up with sittings of the Special Criminal Court. Up to January 1977 the Presidency of the Special Criminal Court had been filled by a retired judge of the High Court, but he was then appointed chairman of An Bord Pleanála and, in order to ensure that there would, at all times, be a High Court judge available to act as President of the Special Criminal Court, it became necessary to appoint four High Court judges to be members of that court. The effect of this has been to deprive the High Court of the full time of one judge.

Another factor which is a source of strain on the resources of the High Court is the substantial growth in recent years of family law business which, because of its personal nature, needs to be disposed of with the minimum of delay. The stage has now been reached where it has been found necessary to allocate the full time of one judge to it. The increase of two in the number of High Court judges provided by the Courts Act, 1977 has thus been absorbed and the court has not been able to reduce either its arrears of business or the average time-lag between the date of setting down of a case and the date of hearing which, in the case of jury actions, had grown from seven-and-a-half months in 1977 to ten months on 6 April 1979, the end of the Hilary law term.

The annual number of jury actions set down for hearing in the High Court has risen from 863 in 1872 to 1,861 in 1978 and, despite the fact that in 1978 the court disposed of 1,555 cases, the highest number disposed of by the High Court in any one year, arrears continue to accumulate and a serious position now exists. The position has been made worse by the necessity to assign a High Court judge to conduct the Bantry Bay disaster inquiry, which is likely to deprive the High Court of his services for many months.

Accordingly, it is essential that additional judges be made available to the High Court with the minimum of delay, otherwise a situation will arise in which it will be impossible to overtake the arrears of business, and the time-lag between the dates of setting down and of hearing of cases will continue to increase, a situation which, I am sure Senators will agree, must not be allowed to develop.

This Bill is, therefore, of vital importance to the proper administration of justice and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Cooney

So far as this party are concerned, this Bill is welcome. Anything that can go towards providing speedy resolution of litigation is welcome. The last time the number of judges was increased was in 1977; no, it was earlier than that——

Mr. D. Andrews

The last increase in the number of High Court judges was in 1975.

Mr. Cooney

No, it was before that. However, it is a detail.

Mr. D. Andrews

The increase of two in the number of High Court judges provided by the Courts Act, 1977.

Mr. Cooney

Time slips past. The last time it happened it had the effect of reducing the time lag in litigation coming to trial, or for hearing. Anything achieving that aim is desirable, and I hope this Bill will assist in that way also. I recall that one of the constraints on increasing the number by more than two at that time was the shortage of accommodation; we could have increased the number of judges but the difficulty was to provide court rooms, chambers and all the other necessary ancillary facilities. There were severe difficulties of accommodation in the Four Courts at that time. I had initiated certain changes to try to ease the accommodation in the Four Courts. The old Four Courts Hotel was purchased. It was the intention to move certain clerical staff from the High Court and the Dublin County Registrar's Office into the Four Courts Hotel, thereby making more space available for courts proper in the Four Courts building itself. I think too there were discussions involving the possibility of some part of the solicitors' building being used to provide a court. Perhaps when the Minister is replying he could give an indication of where these additional judges will sit, if it has been found possible to bring that initiative to completion and extra court accommodation is now available. I think there were problems also concerning the District Court and to a lesser extent, the Circuit Court—problems of accommodation. I would be glad to hear from the Minister what is the up-to-date position on the whole court accommodation scene generally.

Another factor which has tended to slow up litigation coming to hearing has been the complexity of the pre-trial procedures, the pleadings and all the rest of it that have to be undertaken. I recall that when I left office a Bill was at an advanced stage of preparation. So far as I recall, the heads had been approved and, indeed, drafting had commenced—a Court Officers Bill which was to implement recommendations of the Committees on Court Practice and Procedure, designed to speed up the pre-trial procedure and to give an enhanced jurisdiction to the Master. The recommendations would have streamlined the pleadings. They would have provided for the exchange, in documentary form, of certain formal proofs so as to obviate the necessity of calling technical witnesses to prove something that was going to be admitted anyway. They provided for an exchange in medical reports and various preliminary matters such as that, all designed to make the process more streamlined and get the case to court sooner. It also provided for an enhanced jurisdiction for the Master to enable him to make rulings on a lot of preliminary matters which at present have to be dealt with in the court proper after the case has been set down, which delays the setting down of the case and can delay the action getting under way. When I left office, the heads of that Bill had been settled and, so far as I recall, the actual Bill itself was being drafted. That was two years ago and I would have expected that that Bill would have been completed by now and be before us.

I have no doubt that the consequences of that Bill will be to speed up litigation. I would urge the Minister to find out what is the present stage with regard to it and to try to ensure that it will come before the Houses of the Oireachtas when we meet again after the summer recess. Hopefully, the combination of the extra judges, the streamlined administrative procedures and pre-trial procedures will possibly achieve what we would all like to see, a period when the delay between setting down and hearing will be reduced to not more than a month and that, more importantly, the time lag between the issuing of the summons and getting it to the setting-down stage will be reduced from its present period, which can range anything from a year to two years, or even longer.

Perhaps the Minister would deal with those two matters—the question of the up-to-date position with regard to accommodation in the Four Courts and the present position with regard to the proposed Court Officers Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. D. Andrews)

I am grateful to Senator Cooney, the former Minister for Justice, for welcoming this Bill. He appreciates probably more than most of us the need for the increase in the number of judges.

On the question of High Court accommodation and court accommodation generally in the Four Courts, as the Senator is aware, at present there are some nine court rooms available for High Court business. As I have stated, one High Court judge sits on the Special Criminal Court in Green Street. Therefore at present it is possible to accommodate all ten High Court judges at sittings in Dublin. Judge Costello's temporary absence on the tragic Bantry disaster inquiry will make another court room available. Because High Court judges have other duties to discharge elsewhere than in the court room in Dublin there are many occasions during the year when court rooms are available which could be utilised by the proposed additional judges. Those occasions arise when, for example, the High Court goes on circuit to hear appeals. Of course, the High Court goes on circuit to hear original actions at provincial venues—that is when it goes to Cork three times during the year in January, April and October to hear original jury actions, when judges are working in their chambers on the preparation of judgments, vetting transcripts of cases, writing notes on cases appealed to the High Court or studying relevant papers for sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and when the Court of Criminal Appeal, which is comprised of the Chief Justice and two High Court judges, is sitting. The President of the High Court has, of course, expressed concern in that respect and in other respects and is doing what he can to ensure that the judges of the High Court have proper accommodation. I know he is achieving his objective in that regard.

The Circuit Court accommodation, from my short experience at the Bar, in one particular building was high up and, to say the very least of it, a very inaccessible courtroom. However, I understand that things have improved somewhat in that regard in the Circuit Court area. I do not think there is too much hardship on the Justice and the litigants in regard to the District Court. There are quite a number of District Courts in the area of the Four Courts, including the Bride-well—as Senator Cooney will appreciate—and I think District Courts in the Four Courts area are reasonably well catered for.

On the question of the Court Officers Bill I should like to assure Senator Cooney that, whilst I cannot give any undertakings, this Bill will be before this House in the next term, as he requested. Certainly every effort will be made to bring it forward as speedily as possible. The matter is being dealt with in the Department of Justice at this time. Senator Cooney knows the problems involved in the preparation of Bills of this nature, and indeed others relating to the Department of Justice. He would appreciate the difficulties one encounters. One prepares the heads of a Bill; one sends them to the various Government Departments. They have to give their opinion. Then one gets all the heads back with the comments from these Government Departments which must be analysed and so on before being brought to the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I should like to asure Senator Cooney that certainly we will take note of what he says and undertake to bring forward as speedily as human beings can, within their competence, matters of this nature.

There were no other queries in relation to the Bill. There is urgent need for the appointment of these three judges. I appreciate the unanimity of the Seanad support for the Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.