Niall Collins
Question:4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to reform the Courts' structure; the timeframe for such plans; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39445/12]
View answerWednesday, 19 September 2012
Questions (4)
Oral answers (7 contributions)
In July last, the Government approved the Minister's proposals to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution to provide that the Oireachtas may establish additional courts, including superior courts. As the Deputy will be aware, the current position is that Article 34 of the Constitution provides that the High Court is a court of first instance and the Supreme Court is the court of final appeal. The Constitution further provides that courts of local and limited jurisdiction may be provided by law. There is no provision for the establishment of other courts.
The proposed amendment would, if passed, allow for the establishment of modern court structures including a court of civil appeal and a new family court structure. This follows from the report of the working group on a court of appeal, which reported in 2009, and a commitment in the agreed programme for Government to establish separate family courts. There is, as the Deputy may be aware, an urgent need to address significant delays in the Supreme Court list and in other areas, such as family law. In future, other areas may arise such as, for example, a European patent court or an environment court. Specialist courts and judges combined with an additional court at appellate level would assist with the State's obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to have legal proceedings determined within a reasonable time.
These proposals have the potential to achieve significant change to the structure of the courts, which have remained largely unchanged since 1924. Considerable work will be necessary to develop these proposals and this already has commenced in the Department. A decision on the timing of the necessary referendum will be made at a later date. As a next step, the Minister intends to engage in a public consultation process on the proposed reforms to foster a wide-ranging debate and I understand that submissions will be invited in the near future.
The issue of the reconfiguration of the courts merits further probing and investigation in this Chamber. No one can disagree with the proposal to establish a civil court of appeal. There are 36 High Court jurisdictions nationwide and most of their decisions are being appealed. As the knock-on appeals are going to the single Supreme Court, the knock-on effect is that other issues of great public importance to a wider body of people are being delayed. This obviously is an issue within the public interest and has merit. The issue I wish to probe with the Minister of State concerns the source of the decision to establish a stand-alone family court because we do not have, for example, a personal injuries court, a constitutional court or a commercial law court, albeit there are commercial sittings as a function of the High Court. While I acknowledge there is merit in addressing the sensitivities of the issues discussed in the family law courts, perhaps that can be done within the existing court structures. However, if one is to establish a stand-alone family law court or any form of stand-alone court, one must consider making a raft of judicial appointments. Similarly, one will be obliged to provide a raft of back-up services and all that goes with the establishment of a particular court, as well as the associated costs. Consequently, from where is the call for the establishment of a family law court coming? As far as I am aware, the report cited by the Minister of State only made specific mention of the court of civil appeal and did not mention the family law courts as such.
While I take on board the point made by the Deputy, for as long as I can recall, that is, for up to 25 years, I and the other two Deputies present in the Chamber - Deputy Catherine Murphy for certain - have been involved in calls for separate family courts. Moreover, there is a very good argument for this to happen. It would take additional personnel who were specially trained to adjudicate in such courts. The Deputy will be aware from his own experience that it simply is not appropriate for someone hearing, for instance, drink driving cases in the morning then to be obliged to deal with highly sensitive issues, such as family breakdown, access to children and so on. Consequently, there is a logical and reasonable argument to be made in favour of specific family courts. I support the Minister's thinking in this regard. As the Deputy is aware, the Minister himself is considered to be one of the country's leading experts on family law and I am sure he has experienced difficulties with regard to family law and how it operates in this country. While most people try to be sensitive and to do what is right, sometimes it is very difficult in difficult surroundings and sometimes people do not consider themselves to have the relevant expertise to carry out that function.
The Minister should not get me wrong, as I do not state I am opposed to the proposal. I simply am trying to probe the reason for it.
I understand.
Many of the reasons being cited for its establishment that are being put into the public domain by the Minister of State or by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, essentially are logistical in nature. The Minister of State referred to a judge not being obliged to hear a drink driving case in the morning before dealing with family law in the afternoon. While logistical or infrastructural factors may be one reason, it seems to be a narrow reason. It is being suggested that the judges who are hearing the cases at present lack expertise. Has the Minister been informed of a deficiency in respect of the judges who are hearing family law cases in the family law court sittings? Has the Courts Service informed the Minister there is a deficiency of judges with such specialties?
No, that has not been stated at all. Basically it is like any expertise in that most judges who deal with family law cases on a regular basis build up a degree of knowledge and expertise in the area. I share the widely-held belief that it might not necessarily be a judge of the High Court, for instance, who must deal with it. Instead, it might require a different category of officer of the courts who would deal with family law matters. As someone I know once noted, sometimes one needs the judgment of Solomon to resolve such issues. The question and the answer to it basically pertain to having the freedom to create additional courts where the need arises, without being obliged to revert continuously to the Constitution.
I believe that is the essence of the question and what the referendum would produce. There is merit in having separate family courts and I know that the Deputy does not mean he is opposed to it.