The Courts and Court Officers Bill, 1994, contained measures aimed at improving the courts system. Those measures have been retained in the present Bill with some significant changes and improvements, but the Courts and Court Officers Bill before the House today addresses in a more effective way the problem of the arrears of cases and appeals awaiting hearing before the courts. It also contains many more provisions which will implement much needed administrative and procedural reforms to improve the efficiency of the courts system.
That system is overdue a full reappraisal and a new approach. The courts have been trying to provide a reasonable level of service in recent times in the face of modern day demands and pressures. There has been a significant increase in the amount of business coming before the courts over the past number of years in practically all areas of the law — in civil actions, personal injuries litigation, family law business and criminal cases. Not only is there more business but the trend is that cases and appeals are more complex now and, therefore, more time consuming than in the past. Changes to the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts and developments in the family law area have had a tremendous impact on the amount and complexity of business coming before the courts. The courts system has not been able to keep up with this growth in the number of cases and appeals.
Let us be in no doubt that long delays in having cases resolved means that the system of justice is letting down many litigants, victims of crime and, to some extent, the community as a whole. Delays in the courts can also adversely affect the smooth running of the business and commercial sector. This, I believe, could undermine public confidence in the system of justice. It is the recognition that justice delayed is justice denied that informs the overall approach to tackling the problems in the courts system.
Under the Courts and Court Officers Bill, 1994, a new Court of Appeal was to have tackled the accumulation of appeals awaiting a hearing by the Supreme Court. An advisory commission on the courts was to have been set up. It is a fair indication of the extent of reassessment of the 1994 Bill that the present Bill, together with the proposals for the longer term development of the courts system, differ markedly from what was proposed in these key areas in the 1994 Bill.
The approach to reforming the courts service will be on three levels: first, to tackle immediately the problem of delays in all the courts by providing in this Bill for 18 more judges; second, to implement in this Bill several other changes in courts administration and procedure that will also reduce delays and enhance the efficiency of the courts service and third, to develop a longer term approach to improving our courts system.
On this last point, I will be taking the opportunity to refer in a few moments to the Working Group on the Courts Commission which was recently set up. This Bill addresses the immediate problem of delays in the system but it is vital that we address now the issue of what kind of courts service we will have in five, ten or 15 years time. We cannot lose sight of that.
As I have said, the 1994 Bill proposed the setting up of a Court of Appeal comprised of three additional High Court judges to deal mainly with appeals against decisions of the High Court in personal injuries cases and to relieve the problem of delays in hearing appeals in the Supreme Court. Having reviewed that proposal, it was concluded that the proposed Court of Appeal would fall short of the target of clearing the arrears of appeals before the Supreme Court. An Appeal Court hearing appeals predominantly from decisions in personal injuries cases could not be justified even though it was also to have incorporated the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal. This conclusion was reached following consultation with the senior Judiciary and others. The Minister was not convinced that the proportion of personal injury appeals that come to a hearing and the nature of those appeals would have generated enough business to keep the proposed Court of Appeal fully occupied. In addition, the proposed Court of Appeal would possibly have generated a further tier of appeals from that court to the Supreme Court. That would have defeated the purpose of the proposed court. It would also have been highly inefficient as it would have led to further delays in the system and greater costs.
The real pressure on the Supreme Court comes from the very considerable increase in the length and complexity of appeals other than personal injuries appeals. The same applies in relation to civil cases in the High Court. In the Supreme Court, a further factor is that the statutory maximum number of judges of the Supreme Court has remained static at five, including the Chief Justice, for several decades while the number of judges of the High Court increased at various times over the period from six to the current maximum of 17. This means that there has been a great increase in the volume of decisions that can be appealed to the Supreme Court without a corresponding adjustment in the Supreme Court to cope with that increase. Appeals relating to the Constitution or complex appeals against decisions in major commercial law cases often require immediate attention. We have seen many of these in recent years but that necessary prioritising of business results in other appeals, especially personal injury appeals, being put back. It is unfair to the individual litigant to have to wait so long for an outcome to his or her appeal. We must enable the Supreme Court to make inroads on those arrears.
The approach in section 6 is to provide for an increase of three in the number of Supreme Court judges giving seven judges, in addition to the Chief Justice. Section 7 enables the court to sit in two or more divisions at the same time, thus allowing two or more appeals to be heard simultaneously. This will enable the Supreme Court to sit in divisions of three judges for most appeals or in two divisions of three and five judges where a court of at least five judges is required. Section 7 stipulates that a court of not less than five judges would deal with matters arising under Articles 12 to 26 of the Constitution which refer respectively to the President and to the reference of Bills to the Supreme Court, or a question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution.
Under section 7 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, such matters must be heard by five Supreme Court judges. By virtue of section 7 of the Bill, therefore, the Chief Justice may determine that the full court may sit in such cases. It is envisaged that the full court will sit only on rare occasions. I am convinced that enabling the Supreme Court to hear more than one case at the same time is the most effective way of tackling the arrears of appeals at Supreme Court level and enabling the court to deal with the increasing number and complexity of appeals which must be heard.
A further development affecting the Supreme Court is contained in section 2 (1) of the Bill. This section enables the Government by order, following consultation with the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court, to abolish the Court of Criminal Appeal and to transfer its jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. It is intended that such an order will be made when the arrears of civil appeals in the Supreme Court are brought under control.
Moving on to the other courts, sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill increase the statutory maximum number of judges from 16 to 19 in the High Court, from 17 to 24 in the Circuit Court and from 45 to 50 in the District Court, not including the presidents of those courts — an overall increase of 15 judges in these courts. That represents a very considerable commitment on the part of this Government to tackling the backlog of cases and appeals before these courts.
I want to focus in the time available to me on the Circuit Court. The accumulation of civil business, including family law business in the Circuit Court, is a considerable difficulty for many people. The provision for an additional seven judges in the Circuit Court is a considerable investment but I am confident that this will produce a worthwhile return to the public.
There are two important factors that have brought about the current accumulation of cases in the Circuit Court. First, the Courts Act, 1991, increased the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court from £15,000 to £30,000 which resulted in a major increase in the volume of civil business for hearing in the court. It appears this increase in court business is permanent and will probably grow. Civil cases before the Circuit Court are now more numerous, complex and time consuming than before.
The second factor at Circuit Court level is the huge increase in family law business. The Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, transferred the majority of family law business in the courts to the Circuit Court. This and the fact that more people are having recourse to the court in these proceedings has led to a marked increase in the volume of family law business in the Circuit Court.
Delays in the hearing of family law business in a number of Circuit Court venues lead to a significant human cost not only to the parties involved but also to their families. Additional judges in the Circuit Court are badly needed to eliminate the present delays there and to deal with the volume of civil and family business in that court. One point that continuously came up in the recent divorce referendum debate was the difficulty experienced by people in separation cases in getting reasonably rapid access to the court and this is a serious problem.
While I have concentrated in my remarks on the Supreme Court and Circuit Court, it must be said that there are also similar problems in the High Court and District Court. The appointment of additional judges to all four courts is an essential step to turn around the business of the courts and to improve matters in the courts system with immediate effect. Government approval has also been obtained for the provision of comprehensive administrative back up for the new judges. I should make it clear, however, that in no way do I see increasing the statutory number of judges as the only solution to deal with the current problems. This approach will work in conjunction with other reforms contained in this Bill to improve efficiency in the courts.
As regards the longer term development of the courts service, the Minister for Justice has decided to institute a full reappraisal of the entire existing courts system. With that in mind Government approval was obtained last summer for the setting up of a working group on a Courts Commission. That group, to be chaired by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham of the Supreme Court, was set up a number of weeks ago. This provides an opportunity for a thorough examination of the courts system to ensure it is meeting the needs of today's society. This development will no doubt make a vital contribution to the modernising of our courts system. The group is broadly representative and that is essential. We must have the views and be in a position to draw on the experience of the Judiciary, the legal professions and the relevant Government Departments as well as other types of experience, such as that of Women's Aid and the rape crisis centres.
The working group will be reviewing the operation and financing of the courts system with particular regard to the quality of service provided to the public. That should be the bottom line for the development of the service. In light of that, the group has been asked 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 Government of Renewal programme.
This is a better approach than adopting the advisory model for a courts commission, which was a feature of the 1994 Bill. This Government has taken the view that working towards an independent body responsible to the Government for the management of the courts service would be a more effective and efficient approach. That strategy, however, needs to be carefully developed in the forum of the working group. The working group will be well placed to address all of the many and varied issues that no doubt will arise.
Part IV of the Bill deals with judicial appointments and provides for the setting up of a Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. This will introduce an important new dimension to the procedure for judicial appointment. The 1994 Bill also provided for the setting up of a Judicial Appointments Advisory Board and I will be dealing in a moment with a number of important differences between that board as proposed and the one that will be set up under the terms of the present Bill.
I would like to briefly put these new arrangements in perspective. The procedure for appointing judges is governed by the Constitution. Article 35 provides that the judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and all other courts shall be appointed by the President. That power is exercisable and performable on the advice of the Government. That fundamental arrangement is, of course, unaffected by this Bill. I need hardly say that our Judiciary is widely respected for its fairness, integrity and independence. The focus of these measures is, however, on the Government's role in the judicial appointments process. Because of the Government's central role in the appointment of judges, there should be guarantees to ensure that procedures to appoint judges are not only appropriate but are seen to be so.
The advisory board's role will be to shortlist and recommend barristers and solicitors to the Government for appointment to judicial office by the President. The scope of the provision as defined in section 12 is similar to that proposed in the 1994 Bill in that the new arrangements will not cover appointments to Chief Justice or as president of the other courts. This is a prudent exclusion because the Government, in considering appointments to these leading judicial posts, will want to promote continuity in the courts system. That is why section 23 provides that the Government, when considering those appointments, shall have to first have regard to the suitability of serving judges of those courts.
Section 17 further defines the scope of the new procedures. That section provides, in effect, that where the Government proposes to advise the President to appoint a serving judge to a higher court, the procedures of the board shall not apply. In other words, the new appointments procedure will apply to the first appointment of a barrister or a solicitor as a judge. It is appropriate that a person whom Government has in the past considered suitable for judicial appointment should be exempt from the board's procedures where the Government is proposing to advise the President on the further judicial appointment of that judge.
The composition of the board provided for in the 1994 Bill was not sufficiently representative. In fact, there was no provision for any representative other than that of the Judiciary or the legal professions. The main change in section 13 is that the Minister will have the right to nominate to the board three persons who have appropriate knowledge or experience. This will allow the Minister to introduce a wide range of experience into the process, such as nominees with commercial, administrative and consumer backgrounds — in other words, those who can represent people who rely on the courts on a daily basis. Representatives of victims of crime, women's groups and perhaps other bodies could bring an invaluable new perspective to the consideration of the suitability of candidates for judicial appointment. Of course, all those interests could not be accommodated in the first round of nominees, but the provision for a three year renewable term of appointment allows the option of introducing a broad range of influence over a longer period of time.
A further change in the composition of the board is that the Attorney General of the day would be a member. The Attorney General of the day would be uniquely suitable, with his or her knowledge of the legal profession, to be a member of the board. Under section 18, the board will be able to recommend the Attorney General for a judicial appointment, However, when the board is considering the Attorney for appointment, he or she will be required to withdraw from the deliberations of the board.
Section 16 provides for the submission by the board of the names of all persons who have been considered by the board for appointment, with the board recommending at least seven persons. Requiring the board to recommend only three to five names, as proposed in the 1994 Bill, would give the Government little discretion in the matter of judicial appointments, which it has by virtue of the constitutional arrangements relating to the matter. For this reason the board should be required to recommend a reasonable number of names.
The Bill provides that where fewer than seven persons wish to be considered for appointment or where the board is unable to recommend seven persons, the board may recommend a lesser number of names for appointment. Where more than one vacancy arises, the board will be required to submit at least seven names for each vacancy or such a lesser number as the Minister may specify after consultation with the board. The intention here is to avoid imposing an obligation on the board to produce a large number of recommendations which could prove to be difficult in the event of a number of vacancies arising in the same court.
The recommendation of the advisory board will not be binding on the Government. That is appropriate, mindful of the constitutional position relating to judicial appointments. It is nevertheless expressly provided in section 16 that the Government shall first have regard to the names recommended by the board in advising the President on the appointment of a judge. This is a significant direction to Government and one that highlights the pivotal role the new board will have. To ensure that the input of the board is on the public record, section 16 also requires that the notice of appointment published in Iris Oifigiúil shall indicate when a judge has been appointed on the recommendation of the board.
Section 48 will enable the Minister to provide funds for judicial courses arranged by the Judiciary. The provision of suitable courses is necessary to enable judges to keep up to date with developments in a range of legal and other areas. The senior Judiciary has already taken initiatives in this area and funding has already been provided for seminars in the past. I understand that the Chief Justice is setting up a judicial studies institute which will have responsibility both for an induction course for newly appointed judges and a continuing course of education and training for members of the Judiciary. Those countries which already have this facility have found it enormously useful, especially in new and developing areas. The clearest example in this country would be family law developments and court cases relating to women, especially with regard to rape cases.
Under section 19, persons wishing to be considered for judicial appointment by the advisory board must agree to take training courses if appointed and if so required by the Chief Justice or president of the court to which they are appointed. This is a better approach than that proposed in the 1994 Bill, whereby the Minister would make regulations requiring training for candidates aspiring to judicial appointment. I am sure this would be unworkable, not least because it would discourage well qualified persons from seeking judicial appointment as they would be required to undertake a course without any guarantee of being appointed.
Apart from increasing the number of judges, the Bill contains several measures to improve efficiency in the interests of users of the court. I wish to explain the most significant of these. Section 25 will increase the jurisdiction of the Master of the High Court to enable the Master to deal with the range of applications that at present must be dealt with by judges of the High Court. This will ensure that the fullest possible use is made of the office of the Master in the judicial area. This section also provides that under the rules of court, additional powers to deal with pre trial procedures may be conferred on the Master. This would mean that the Master of the High Court could, under such rules, have jurisdiction to simplify and narrow in so far as possible all the issues which may arise in an action. When the Master has disposed of pre-trial issues the action would then be submitted to court. This will help to keep the hearing of actions as short as possible and release High Court judges from the time spent on various applications and other matters preliminary to hearing the central arguments in a case.
Section 34 confers new powers on county registrars, as set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill. These additional powers correspond to those which are currently exercised by the Master of the High Court in respect of the High Court. The effect of the proposal is that county registrars will be empowered to deal with many motions that judges of the Circuit Court are at present required to hear, such as motions to remit actions to the High Court, notices for discovery and motions to join a third party. I am satisfied that this will effect considerable savings of court time and will help to reduce delays at Circuit Court level. Section 34 also provides that appeals from decisions of the county registrars shall lie to the Circuit Court.
Section 45 gives the Superior Courts and Circuit Court Rules Committees the power to make rules requiring parties in High and Circuit Court personal injuries actions to disclose, without having to apply to court, the reports of experts, such as doctors, whom it is intended to call to give evidence. Again, this is aimed at speeding up the hearing of actions and should help to reduce legal costs for litigants.
There has been concern about the ease with which criminal trials, often of very serious offences, can be switched from the Circuit Court sitting outside Dublin to the Dublin Circuit Court. This exacerbates the problem of delay in the Dublin Circuit Court and can be a costly exercise from the point of view of bringing gardaí and witnesses to the Dublin Circuit Court. Under the Courts Act, 1981, once the required notice is given, an application to transfer to the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court is automatically granted. I do not accept that transfers in all of these cases can be justified. There may well be legitimate grounds in certain circumstances to grant an accused a trial before a jury from a region other than, say, where the accused lives. Section 32 provides that an application to transfer the trial to Dublin will only be granted by the court if the judge is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust not to do so. I know that many Members of the House, especially from the Cork area, have raised on the Adjournment on a number of occasions the matter regarding the number of transfers of cases from the Cork area to the Dublin area at great expense and, in practice, at great delay. Various theories have been put forward as to why these transfers may take place. This provision should enable us to deal with the problem, which will be substantially to the benefit of areas and court jurisdictions such as Cork.
The Bill also rationalises the territorial jurisdiction of judges of the District Court. At present an accused before the District Court may only be tried in the District Court district where he or she lives or was arrested, or where the offence was committed. This can give rise to inefficiencies and unnecessary costs. Section 41 will allow for much greater flexibility in the hearing of criminal cases by District Court judges. It will allow for the trial of an offence and the processing of other matters by any District Court judge in any District Court in certain circumstances.
A number of the measures in the Bill, some of which I have already mentioned, should have the effect of reducing legal costs by increasing efficiency and speeding up the business in the court. However, I am acutely conscious of the need for an effective control mechanism with regard to legal costs when costs are in dispute. The settling of disputed legal cost bills is the function of the taxing masters of the High Court, or at Circuit Court level, that of country registrars. Significant deficiencies in the powers of the taxing masters have been identified following a number of court decisions. Section 27 of the Bill will give much needed additional powers to the taxing masters of the High Court and to county registrars in the Circuit Court to evaluate solicitors' and counsels' fees and fees charged by expert witnesses in actions and to allow or disallow such fees. These powers will also be available to the taxing masters with regard to solicitor and client bills of costs. I am confident that this move will help to restore effective control over legal costs where these costs have not been agreed.
Section 50 confers on the Master of the High Court and other court officers the discretion that only judges currently have to order the payment of interest on awards. The Bill will ensure that a plaintiff who seeks an award of interest will not have to apply separately to a judge at additional cost.
I wish to briefly mention some important changes relating to the legal profession and the Judiciary. Under section 30, solicitors will for the first time be made eligible for appointment as Circuit Court judges. At present, only barristers are eligible for appointment to the Circuit Court. This measure widens appreciably the pool of talent form which the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board can draw when making recommendations for appointment to the Circuit Court. Section 28 provides that a judge with four years service on the Circuit Court bench shall be eligible for appointment as a judge of the High or Supreme Court. This is a significant new provision which will qualify a former solicitor who has been appointed a Circuit Court judge for appointment to the Superior Courts after four years service as a judge of the Circuit Court.
Section 28 also provides for an amendment to the law in relation to qualification for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court and the High Court. The Bill addresses an anomaly under the existing law. At present, 12 years practice as a barrister is required to qualify for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court and the High Court. Service as a judge of the Circuit Court counts as practice as a barrister. However, service as a judge of the European Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance attached to that court or as an Advocate-General of the Court of Justice does not make up practice as a barrister. Section 28 deems such service to be practice at the Bar for the purpose of qualifying a person for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court and High Court. A similar provision was included in the 1994 Bill.
Section 47 provides for a retirement age of 70 years for newly appointed judges to the Supreme and High Courts. The current retirement age for judges appointed to these courts is 72 years. Circuit Court judges retire at 70 years of age. In the District Court, a judge can seek extension from 65 to 70 years of age. This new provision for Supreme and High Court judges will, over time, effectively bring about uniformity of retirement ages for judges of all courts. The 70 years retirement age will not apply to judges who hold office at the time the provisions come into effect, including judges who are subsequently appointed from a lower court to the Supreme or High Court.
The legal system can have a profound and lasting effect on the lives of individuals in the community. Central to the success of that system is the delivery of justice and that is why an efficient courts system is so vital. It is how that system performs as a service that is of most importance to me and, indeed, to the individual member of the public who relies on it. I am confident that this Bill will set the courts service on course to provide a greatly improved service for the future.
I look forward to hearing the views of Senators and I commend the Bill to the House.