Nora Owen
Ceist:59 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the proposals, if any, he has to televise or broadcast court proceedings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2616/00]
Other Questions. - Televising of Court Proceedings.
Brian O'Shea
Ceist:99 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the recent comments made by the High Court Judge (details supplied) regarding the televising of courts proceedings; if he will introduce legislation which would allow even limited television or radio coverage of court cases or tribunals of inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2534/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 59 and 99 together.
This is not a new issue, it has been around for some years, having been considered and reported on, as Deputies will know, by the Law Reform Commission in 1994. I accept it is an important and complex issue which requires careful consideration and extensive consultation in advance of any decision on the introduction of legislation. The Law Reform Commission considered that the issue has considerable implications for the administration of justice in general.
The Courts Service, which was established by the Minister on 9 November 1999 has responsibility under the Courts Service Act, 1998, to manage the courts and provide information on the courts system to the public. I understand from the Courts Service that the televising of court cases is a matter which will be reviewed by the service in due course. Any such review will include full consultation with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Judiciary, members of the legal profession, court users and other interested bodies. The Minister will look carefully at the recommendations in this area.
As regards broadcasting tribunal proceedings, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 1998, are silent on the matter of televising or broadcasting proceedings of a tribunal. While the likelihood is that an amendment of those Acts would be required to permit televising or broadcasting of proceedings, it may be that such provision could be made in the instrument or order appointing the tribunal without the need for legislation. It is, of course, a matter for this House and the Seanad to resolve that it is expedient that a tribunal of inquiry is established in each case and to agree the terms of reference of any tribunal. The question as to whether the televising or broadcasting of a particular tribunal should be provided for would arise in any event in the context of the passing of such a resolution.
While tribunals are not courts, the application of the Acts of 1921 to 1998 to a tribunal give a tribunal certain powers, rights and privileges that are vested in the High Court for evidential purposes. Given those circumstances, it may be that debate on the televising or broadcasting of proceedings before a tribunal would have to take into account the considerations that would also arise in the context of examination of the question of broadcasting or televising of court proceedings. As I mentioned earlier, the Courts Service review of this issue will include full consultation with the various interested bodies and the Minister will consider carefully recommendations which they may bring forward in this area.
(Mayo): I thank the Minister of State for her reply. In view of the fact that the Constitution states that justice must be administered in public and in light of the recent suggestions by Mr. Justice Paul Carney that court proceedings should be televised and the fact that technological advances are such that it should be possible to do so without a great deal of difficulty, who will make the final decision, will it be the Government, the Judiciary or the Courts Service?
As I stated in my reply, because of the many implications of this development, there will be a lot of consultations with all those concerned, despite the Law Reform Commission report on the matter, before a decision can be reached. We should await the Courts Service's review and consideration of the process. It will consult not just the Judiciary but members of the legal profession, courts users and others concerned and it is important that the Minister considers the recommendations before a decision is taken.
Arising from her reply, I wish to ask the Minister of State three brief questions. First, will the televising of court proceedings require legislation, second, does the Minister of State agree with the assertion of Mr. Justice Paul Carney of the High Court that a strong argument could be made for the televising of court cases and, third, what is the opinion of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this matter? The personal opinion of the Minister is important rather than leave it to an agency established to run the affairs of the courts.
On the opinion of the Minister and the need for legislation, Article 34.1 of the Constitution states: "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public." The Minister is not reticent in his views when introducing legislation in this area. However, before we begin to talk about introducing legislation, we need to decide what we are legislating for. In addition to whether the legislation will prove necessary, it is a topic which will need considerable debate both in this House and elsewhere. As I said in my reply, the Minister will consider carefully any proposals put to him in this regard.
What is the Minister's view?
The Deputy asked about the judge and I am attempting to answer the question.
What is his view?
The Deputy's first question related to legislation, the second to the judge's comments and the third to the Minister's opinion. I am aware of the judge's comments on the matter. He is as entitled as anyone else to comment on the matter and if his comments contribute to an informed debate on the issue, so much the better. I understand the Courts Service review of the matter will—
The Minister of State is not answering my question.
The Minister of State without interruption.
—include full consultation with the whole Judiciary and many others. I have answered Deputy Howlin's three questions.
Regardless of whether a decision is made to broadcast court proceedings, whoever is responsible should make an immediate decision to amplify those proceedings. This is a complaint made by people who attend court hearings, including families of victims and so on. These people cannot hear what is happening and perhaps the Minister of State would convey that message to the appropriate authority. The Deputy asked about tribunals. My personal opinion is that the tribunals currently taking place should be broadcast. Broadcasting of the DIRT inquiry made it clear that people obtained a better understanding of what is taking place.
A brief question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister consider referring both issues, particularly the broadcasting of court proceedings, to the Committee on Court Practices and Procedures? I wish to declare an interest because I am a member of that committee.
Amplification is a problem in some courthouses but probably not in all courthouses. If the Deputy is aware of any particular courthouses where this is a difficulty, I ask her to bring them to our attention. We will be happy to raise the issue because it is not good enough if people cannot hear what is happening in courthouses.
(Mayo): Regarding my original question, the Minister can communicate with me later if she does not have the answer to hand. However, after all the debate and deliberations, which usually mean a delay, who will make the final decision? Will it be the Government, the courts or the Courts Service? Can the Minister give an indication with regard to a deadline? It should be done without delay.
In terms of a timeframe, as the Deputy is aware, the Courts Service was only established on 9 November. The issue of the televising of court proceedings is being reviewed by the new Courts Service. The review will include consultation with all relevant people and the Courts Service will come back to the Minister with its recommendation. The Minister will make the determination.
(Mayo): The Minister will make the decision.
The Minister referred to consultation with the Judiciary, the board of the Courts Service and others. Will there be consultation with bodies such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and others who represent the interests of the public who might be the subject of questioning in the courts?
I assure the Deputy that the review will include full consultation with all interested bodies, including court users, interested groups and committees and others. People should be aware that the review is taking place and that full consultation is sought. If people have views, the Courts Service would be interested in hearing from them before it makes its recommendations.
Does the Minister accept it would be better to have proper broadcast units in the tribunals rather than have the proceedings acted out by people on the "Tonight with Vincent Browne" show? In many ways, that is unfair to everybody. When is the situation likely to be rectified? As Deputy Higgins said, this should happen sooner rather than later.
As I stated, the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 to 1998, are silent on the televising or broadcasting of the proceedings of tribunals. While tribunals are not courts, the application of the Acts of 1921 to 1998 to a tribunal give it certain powers, rights and privileges which are vested in the High Court for evidential purposes. Given those circumstances, it may be that the debate on the televising or broadcasting of proceedings before a tribunal would have to take into account the considerations that would also arise in the context of the examination of the broadcasting or televising of court proceedings. The Courts Service's review of this issue will include full consultation with various interested bodies—
Et cetera, et cetera.
The Minister will carefully consider the recommendations.
Broad consultation.
It is important to consult on these issues.
What does the Minister think?
The Deputy's question is important and there is a link in terms of the rights and privileges vested in the High Court for evidential purposes and the powers of tribunals. The broad review must take that into consideration.