JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 2004

Courts Service: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick, chief executive of the Courts Service, Mr. Brendan Ryan, director of corporate services and Ms Marie Ryan, principal officer in the corporate services division. The Courts Service should be congratulated on its excellent annual report for 2002, which shows that considerable reform of the service has been undertaken. The report provides a great deal of transparency in regard to the activities of the courts.

I remind our guests that members of this committee have parliamentary privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee.

Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick

Thank you, Chairman, for your kind comments on the annual report and the reform programme. I thank the committee for this opportunity. We were delighted to accept the invitation to discuss what we know to be an issue of major public concern and one in which the committee takes a great deal of interest. We prepared a lengthy presentation with statistical information, but you will be glad to hear I do not propose laboriously to go through it. We hope it will be of some assistance to the committee in giving some sense of the volume of activity that goes through the courts system.

Chairman

Did all members get a copy of the presentation?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

With the Chairman's permission I will pick up on the more salient issues, particularly some of the issues we were asked to address by the committee. We are happy to engage in ongoing dialogue with the committee to assist it in whatever way we can.

I will repeat that the effectiveness of the practice and procedures of personal injury litigation has been an ongoing matter of public concern and the programme for Government contained a number of proposals for change with particular emphasis on the greater expedition, at lower cost, in the disposal of civil litigation. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act has now been enacted, the Civil Liability and Courts Bill has just been published and the committee on court practice and procedure will shortly be reporting to the Minister at his request examining procedures where personal injury litigation is concerned.

The Courts Service was established to manage the courts and support the Judiciary in the administration of justice. Since our establishment, we have been engaged in major programme of reform and modernisation. Systems and technologies have been and continue to be put in place to facilitate the more efficient and effective disposal of court business. Major information technology systems have been implemented across most areas at this stage and more information in terms of quality and quantity is available than has been the case heretofore. Computers are now in use in a number of courts and video links are used quite regularly.

Just over a week ago, the first commercial case - which is a fairly new regime and may have relevance to other areas in due course - was dealt with by the new commercial court which has a whole new set of rules and a stringent case management system supported by technology including video conferencing, the facility to take evidence from abroad and the facility to display and file documents electronically.

The implementation of the new systems has necessitated on our part a huge review of procedures, processes and rules and the harmonisation, simplification and modernisation of procedures in the various jurisdictions, particularly in regard to personal injuries which is by far the biggest volume of civil litigation in terms of numbers at present. To that end, we have established a particular unit to drive forward that modernisation of rules and procedures and so on.

We are conscious there are a number of constituencies with conflicting views on the effectiveness of the personal injury litigation system and its conflicting requirements. Broadly speaking, plaintiffs and their representative complain of the length of time it takes to get cases to a conclusion and defendants, including insurance companies, are concerned about the cost of litigation. Those are the two biggest issues which come before us.

We have attached a great deal of statistics to the submission. Feedback to us suggests that there is major dissatisfaction with the hearing of personal injury cases relating to three main areas, namely, the time between the claimants instructing their solicitor and the case being listed for hearing, lack of certainty that a case will go ahead on the particular day it is scheduled for and the costs. Members will note from the statistics that in respect of cases set down for trial - in other words, when the court office is notified that the case is ready to go on - for example, in the High Court, the waiting time is, on average, ten days to two weeks. When the High Court is on circuit in the provinces, it is anything between three to six months and in one or two areas it is somewhat longer.

By and large, there is no waiting time before the date the office is told to list the case. That is the first time the offices and the courts get control of the case because, until then, the case is progressed at the speed determined by the parties. In the commercial court, that regime is different because of the complexity of those cases and the scale and size of them. There will be an active case management and the judge will actively meet with the parties at an early stage and agree time scales and so on. That will be monitored to see what wider application that approach might have in other areas of business.

The analysis of the statistics on the year from 2001 to 2002 and the first nine months of 2003 show that, by and large, 50% of cases are set down for trial within one year of their being initiated. The delays are occurring in the other 50% - they are not brought to the stage at which they are ready to set down for trial.

We went back to 1998 and examined the total number of summonses issued by the High Court. Members will note that about half of them never came back into the system. The view of those who are familiar with the lists is that they will not come back because they have either been settled or dropped.

I have set out further analysis in the report which I will not dwell on. I have already mentioned the waiting time in the High Court. The waiting time in the Circuit Court is also quite short - it is generally the next sitting. By "waiting time", we mean the date we get control of the case, which is the date the office is told the parties are ready to go and they look for a hearing date. As far as the parties are concerned, the waiting time begins when the case is initiated, but that is not what we define as "waiting period". The only time the court and court officers get control is when the parties say they are ready to go. Overall, there is little waiting time in any of the courts. The volume of personal injuries claims in the District Court is negligible because the jurisdiction is so low.

Our retrospective statistics for the Circuit Court are not as comprehensive as for the High Court because we had a computerised system in the High Court much earlier. However, we took a sample of typical counties and carried out an analysis of a number of counties and we had information for Dublin, which is obviously the biggest in the civil court. The statistics on the volume of cases and analysis is representative of the country as a whole.

Some 20% of cases go forward for full hearing in the Circuit Court, whereas in the High Court only 5% of cases go forward. The vast majority of cases are settled, usually on the steps on the morning of the court. Whatever new arrangements are introduced and whatever improvements we or others can make, the incentive to settle earlier should become greater. At the moment, as far as the offices are concerned, the same amount of work is done at that stage whether the cases go to full hearing.

In regard to the uncertainty about hearing dates, by and large, most cases get certainty. However, because so many cases settle, the system is predicated on that and the number of cases listed per day assumes a settlement rate in the order of whatever the norm is. It just takes an exception to the norm and the list and days get thrown and people are left waiting with expert witnesses and so on. If there are expert witnesses, every effort is made to have fixed days for hearing so that they are guaranteed a hearing date. There has been an increasing tendency to take evidence by video link and video conferencing in some personal injury cases, particularly in respect of witnesses from abroad.

I have just said that an important issue is culture change. People need to see judicial time as a resource and see that cases are settled. In Scotland people are required to pay a fee for the use of court time. There may or may not be merit in something like that. The prompt exchange of expert reports, the use of video links and so on are also important. Some of those things are happening.

We were asked to address the issue of the Courts and Court Officers Act and the increase in civil jurisdiction. We certainly welcome that change. The presidents of the courts would also welcome the change. For example, for personal injury cases in the District Court there is a fixed scale of costs. In the Circuit Court, costs are typically 50% of costs in the High Court. That is based on an examination of relative costs which we did for the chairperson of the PIAB.

The introduction of the increased jurisdictions——

Chairman

What are the costs in the Supreme Court compared to the High Court?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The Supreme Court only deals with appeals. When one goes to the Supreme Court the time becomes much shorter but the costs are significant. The higher the court, the higher the costs.

The increase in jurisdiction would have a significant impact on the Circuit Court due to the increased complexity of cases. They would also take longer and additional judges would be required. The Circuit Court deals with crime and family law, but crime must receive priority in terms of hearing dates. We estimate that there will be approximately 2,000 extra court sitting days per year. The increase in jurisdiction would remove quite a lot of cases from the High Court, freeing High Court judges to deal with other areas in which work is increasing all the time - judicial review, asylum applications, equity and commercial cases - and reduce the current delays of up to 12 months in the Central Criminal Court.

I mentioned the new commercial court earlier. We will be monitoring this to see whether some of the new procedures and the new regime may have applications in other areas. There is a view that case management in personal injury cases, which are relatively straightforward, would front-load costs rather than reducing them.

Another issue we were asked about was the allocation and training of judges. The joint committee recommended that specific judges should be allocated to deal with personal injury cases. The allocation of judges is a matter for the presidents but in Dublin, for example, a senior judge is assigned to manage the personal injury list and the president tries to assign three other judges full-time to the personal injury list. That can be interrupted if other urgent applications come in or anything else needs to be dealt with.

In the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin, which deals with nearly 50% of personal injury cases, and the Circuit Court nationwide, judges are assigned by the president for a period of time, usually a year or two. He does the same in the areas of crime and family law. In the provinces this is not possible because there is one judge per circuit, who must deal with crime, family law and personal injury cases.

In the matter of training for judges, there is a judicial studies institute, whose budget has been considerably increased since our establishment, which organises an active training programme for judges. All judges also have regular training programmes organised by the board. The organisation is active and regularly has contributors at conferences talking about all areas of litigation, including personal injury.

I was asked about the impact of the PIAB. Undoubtedly, if it is successful it will considerably reduce the number of cases being processed by the court offices. For example, in the High Court there are 10,000 cases. We know we will be dealing with cases in which liability is not an issue, but even allowing for that the impact in terms of numbers should be quite significant. It will probably have a lesser impact on judicial time because, by and large, the cases that go to hearing are those in which liability is disputed, which are vigorously contested. There is sometimes a large volume of such cases. In any event, from the point of view of the offices, the activities of the board could result in thousands fewer summonses being issued each year.

The Civil Liability and Courts Bill 2004, which has just been published, will certainly have an impact. It contains many useful provisions in terms of what we are trying to do, which is to ensure greater discipline and stricter time limits for procedures. We are giving our views to the Department and they have been circulated for consultation in the usual way. We have some views, but they are not significant. The overall thrust of the legislation will be very welcome. The key for those cases which still end up in the court system is whether these arrangements result in earlier settlements. If this is the case it will be much easier to schedule cases and assign judges without the uncertainty of interruption.

The final issue we were asked to consider was the possibility of establishing a central records database. All offices maintain records of court cases under the names of the parties and that information can currently be accessed by anybody. For example, in the High Court there are now public terminals at which any lawyer or member of the public can check the personal injury list, what stage various cases are at, awards that are made and so on. There is also a register of judgments, which is not yet computerised.

We have just installed an IT system into all Circuit Court offices in Cork and when that is up and running the same facility will be available. It is hoped that when all the systems are in place it will be possible to collate a central database. This is public information. It has always been available; the problem up to now was that it was in manual records, whereas now it is increasingly available electronically. We certainly envisage that some way down the line it will be possible to put everything together and create a central database which is accessible electronically.

I have skimmed through the submission. If members have queries or questions we will be happy to try to answer them.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick. I must point out that some senior members of the committee must leave to attend the Order of Business at 10.30 a.m. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that there were 10,000 cases in the High Court. I presume that 5% of that - i.e. 500 cases - will be heard. Is that the case?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Actually, no. What I said was that about 10,000 summonses are issued every year in the High Court. Almost 50% of those never come back - they just disappear. They have presumably been settled or withdrawn. On the actual number heard in the High Court, about 5% of the cases that are ready for trial actually go to trial. This is 5% of 5,000.

Chairman

Is it fair to say that if they all went to trial——

Mr. Fitzpatrick

If they all went to trial the system would collapse. The system is entirely predicated on 5% of cases going to court. It takes only a weekly quirk in the numbers to cause difficulties in terms of allocating judges. There are cases from other lists going on at the same time - personal injury is just one area, albeit one of large volume, of the entire court business. If they were all to go to court it would be——

Chairman

Difficult.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It would require a significant increase in judicial resources.

Deputy Howlin

I have three questions for Mr. Fitzpatrick. I join the Chairm an in complimenting the Courts Service on its work to date. It has been a reforming, impactive group, and I wish its staff well for the future.

My first question relates to jurisdiction. I strongly agree with the view that we should proceed with the implementation of the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002 in terms of jurisdiction although, as the witnesses know, there is strong resistance to that from many in the legal profession. They argue that it will increase costs. I like the way Mr. Fitzpatrick set out the impact it will have.

If the decanting of cases that Mr. Fitzpatrick implies, from the High Court to the Circuit Court, were to happen, is there the physical capacity within the Circuit Court system to absorb that increased usage of the court? I also want to ask about something on which Mr. Fitzpatrick and I in a different existence would have placed a different meaning. I refer to waiting times. In his submission, Mr. Fitzpatrick states that the availability of judicial time is the key issue relating to waiting times. What I will say also relates to personal experience. Even in situations where cases are heard, is Mr. Fitzpatrick happy that the support systems are in place? For example, on the issue of perfecting judgments, I have recent personal experience where, following a reserved judgment of a case heard last summer, the written perfected judgment was available only last month. Is the work capacity in place? How is that issue to be addressed? Is there monitoring of the aftermath, so to speak, of the hearing of cases so that the follow-up is clear?

My last question relates to Mr. Fitzpatrick's response on the question of specific judges. Once it heard all the evidence, this committee expressed a view regarding specialists. Harking back to our previous existence, it is not just medicine but law too that has become more specialised. Commercial law has become very complicated. We have very competent and able people serving on the bench at every level. Mr. Fitzpatrick implies that, at the High Court, it is a matter for the High Court President to assign cases. Is there a case to be made, or should we be reflecting on it, that there should be a specific panel to deal with personal injury cases? How does Mr. Fitzpatrick suggest we deal with the situation if more of these cases are to be dealt with in the Circuit Court, after the implementation of the Courts and Court Officers Act, when it will be basically a Circuit Court judge who takes all comers? As Mr. Fitzpatrick says, personal injury cases can be dislodged by more pressing criminal cases. How are we to have that core of expertise in order that we can rely on consistency of judgments, the major issue which is a concern for many of the people who gave evidence before this committee, and in order that we will not have the situation referred to of waiting for a specific judge who is known to be amenable to one side or another - put crudely, one who is mean to claimants or extremely generous? How do we avoid that if more of the work is to be done in the Circuit Court and a designated judge is in place?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The physical court facilities are now there. By the end of this year, the Courts Service will have refurbished the courthouses in all except four county towns.

Deputy Howlin

Wexford seems to be last on the list.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The contract for the Wexford courthouse is out to tender.

Deputy Howlin

So it is true.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The county town courthouses have been the priority because they account for a large volume of cases. The High Court sits in these towns, as does the Circuit Court. We have refurbished 40 venues so far. The point is that each of these has a minimum of three to four courtrooms. The Cork courthouse, which will open at the end of this year, will have six courtrooms. The capacity, technology and facilities will be in all the new buildings.

The increase in jurisdiction will undoubtedly necessitate extra judges in the Circuit Court. Having discussed this with the President of the Circuit Court, he estimates that he would need a minimum of four to five judges to put out on the circuit, because the judges currently on it have to consider crime as a priority. If criminal cases are ready to proceed, the judges have no option but to give them priority. There is a separate day for family law cases which are increasing in number too. Without question, the Circuit Court President will need more judges to deal with the civil law area.

There should be no waiting time for judgments. I would like to hear privately the details of the specific case mentioned by Deputy Howlin because there should be no delay. We have recently installed PCs in all the High Court courtrooms and have done prototype orders, in order that the registrar should be able to complete the judgment there and then and issue it. If there are delays, we would like to know about them to check them out. I could understand some delay in perfecting an order in a commercial or a family law case where the matter could be complex. Personal injuries orders would tend to be very straightforward, unless there were particularly difficult ones. We will look into any cases which need to be looked at. By and large, orders should be available very quickly.

As the President of the High Court has said, he has been trying to assign judges to particular areas for certain periods. For example, he assigned two judges to the new commercial court. He has assigned a judge to head up the personal injury list because that judge has been doing it for some time. He tries to assign three or four other judges to work on that for certain periods. Difficulties can arise if urgent issues are raised, perhaps judicial reviews on planning issues such as new major infrastructural projects, to which he is also trying to give priority. There is an element of juggling involved. If the settlement issue were further back, that would give the High Court President much more certainty.

As I mentioned, the Circuit Court President assigns judges, in Dublin for example, for periods to deal with crime or personal injury only, or with civil cases - mainly personal injury - in the Circuit Court, or family law cases. The position in the provinces is as I said.

The Courts Service is not concerned with the administration of justice, and the committee will appreciate that I cannot comment on a judge's decision or the level of damages because that is ultimately a judge's decision. Under the legislation, I am precluded here or at any other committee from commenting on a judge's decision. I cannot venture into that area.

Deputy Callanan

I welcome Mr. Fitzpatrick and his colleagues and thank him for his openness. Regarding settlements on the steps of a court, what is going on there? Something must be going on. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that only 5% of Circuit Court cases reach court. This more or less makes a mockery of the court. Those who decide to go to court should end up there. Mr. Fitzpatrick may not be in a position to answer the questions I want to ask. If a barrister or a solicitor does not take a case to court, does he or she receive the same payment, for example, where the case is settled the week before the court hearing date? I want this question answered by somebody, because all those who came before this committee stated that 40% of the compensation agreed went to the legal profession. We want to find out why this is happening. If anyone answers that more money is taken from the client by taking a case to the court steps than settling it a month beforehand or whatever, then it is time that practice was stopped. As it would contribute to the high cost of insurance, we must find out if it takes place.

Chairman

The Deputy will appreciate that section 21 of the Courts Services Act 1998 precludes Mr. Fitzpatrick from commenting on awards and the like.

Deputy McHugh

I join the Chairm an in welcoming the representatives from the Courts Service. I welcome the work of the Courts Service. For a long time, the courts have appeared to me archaic. In a sense, many of the court personnel were presumptuous and almost class-based. We will leave it at that. It is good to see the courts being opened up now and that ordinary people can begin to understand what they are all about. It is good to see the mystery removed from the area.

What impact does Mr. Fitzpatrick think the Personal Injuries Assessment Board will have on court activities and on the number of cases that may have to be heard? What effect will the Civil Liability and Courts Bill have on the level of courts activity? Can we look forward to seeing the commercial court as a template for all courts? Is that the direction in which we are heading? The witnesses have talked of new rules, technology, video conferencing and so on. Can we look forward to seeing those in our courts? I hope so because, for people not used to going to court, it is a terrifying experience to give evidence. The pomp and ceremony surrounding courts is ridiculous in this day and age. A person not accustomed to it is at a great disadvantage. A person should not feel stressed in court before even taking the stand.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said that, with the increased jurisdiction limits in the District Court and the High Court, much more work will be created. Does that mean there will be less work in the High Court since the cases will be coming down from it to the lower courts and that personnel engaged in the High Court will become free?

Deputy T. Dempsey

I am not sure what the jurisdiction of the Courts Service is, and wonder if it has anything to do with how courts present themselves to the ordinary man who eats his dinner in the middle of the day, which is how the ordinary man has been defined. Could the witness address the matter of judges dressing in Victorian wigs? People who walked the streets dressed in that way would be arrested. Such dress is intimidatory.

Mr. Fitzpatrick referred to the training of judges. To the lay man, there is a major inconsistency in how judges deal with what appear to be similar cases. Judges should be interviewed in the way teachers are and trained like them rather than being given the job on the basis of having had experience as a solicitor. There is a difference between administering justice and presenting cases in courts. Has the Courts Service a role in this area?

I am not amazed in the slightest that 95% of cases are settled before they get to the Circuit Court. Could I deduce from this that their intervention is almost unnecessary, and that the PIAB may reduce Circuit Court activity by about 95%?

Mr. Fitzpatrick might tell us if the proposed upper increased compensation limits are linked to inflation. That may have been a mistake in the past.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The statutory remit of the Courts Service is to manage the courts. It is not involved in the administration of justice. Judges are independent.

Deputy T. Dempsey

Has the Courts Service a say in how judges dress?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

No. Judges are not employed by the Courts Service. They are appointed by the Government. There is a separation of power issue. Our remit extends to the management of the courts as distinct from the administration of justice. Judges are entirely independent and, as the Chairman said earlier, I am precluded from commenting at any forum on matters relating to judges.

There may have been a misunderstanding on another matter. In the High Court, 95% of cases are settled before going to court. Clearly, that is to be encouraged. Nobody wants cases fought in court if they can be settled. The point I made was that, if the new mechanisms - the combination of the different initiatives - result in cases being settled earlier, that will make the job of the presidents in allocating judges consistently to personal injury cases much easier.

In the Circuit Court, 20% of cases on average go to a full hearing, and 80% are settled. The comparable figures in the High Court are 5% and 95%. Nobody discourages settlement. Costs depend on the stage at which a case is settled and how much work has been done at the different stages. If a case goes to a full hearing, fees increase significantly. Regarding cases which are settled, we do not know what the costs are at different stages before a full hearing. The only costs with which the Courts Service has any familiarity are those which are taxed by the Taxing Master or, in the case of Circuit Court costs, by the county registrar. One can obviously take it that, if a case is settled, the costs are lower than if the case goes to a full hearing. There is no doubt about that.

Part of our mandate is to provide information to the public. We have carried out a massive information campaign to do what the Deputy has suggested, namely, to demystify the whole area. We are involved in a special programme with the Department of Education and Science which it will incorporate into the national schools' civics programme, or whatever it is now called.

Deputy T. Dempsey

It is the civic, social and political education programme.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Having refurbished all our buildings, we are now encouraging schools to bring children on tours of courts and let them see actual hearings. We are running a substantial information programme.

If the PIAB is successful, then undoubtedly many cases being processed by court offices will no longer come to court. It is likely that the volume of cases and the amount of work done by court offices in processing cases will reduce significantly. There is likely to be less impact on judges' time because, for the most part, cases which go before judges are those in which liability is contested. However, in the High Court, only 5% of cases on average go to a full hearing and only 20% do so in the Circuit Court. The PIAB will have the potential to reduce very considerably the amount of administrative work, the number of cases being processed and all the work that goes with processing them.

Deputy McHugh

Could there be a 50% reduction in cases? Is it too difficult to estimate the reduction?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It is difficult. In the first place, anyone taking a case must go to the PIAB. Assuming that all those who go to the PIAB are happy with the outcome, there should be very few or no cases coming to the courts. There undoubtedly will be a reduction, no matter how successful or otherwise the PIAB is. We are not talking of hundreds of cases, but thousands.

Regarding the Civil Liability and Courts Bill, there are many provisions in it which will impose time limits and expedite the processing of cases. As I said, we have some views on how that might further be strengthened, and we have submitted those to the Department.

There is a very rigorous case management system in the new commercial court and a very high level of technology. Assuming that it is successful there, it may have application, particularly in the bigger cases. The commercial court will be dealing with cases with a value of €1 million or over. Therefore, they are very complex and often involve three or four parties. There is also discretion for the judge in the commercial court. Let us say that there is a judicial review of a case concerning a major Government infrastructural project. The judge has the discretion to take that case since, though there might not be a monetary value, the potential cost of delay could be several million. That has been specifically designed to address matters, particularly where there are infrastructural applications for injunctions or whatever. The experience of the commercial court will certainly be watched very closely. There is concern that whatever we do on personal injuries should not front-load costs. It should not have people incurring more cost earlier rather than later.

The increase in jurisdiction will have an impact on the redistribution if it goes up to €100,000 in the Circuit Court. Going by analysis of a large number of cases, the vast majority are under €100,000. However, judges would be freed in the High Court to deal with other urgent business where there are waiting times. It would require additional judges in the Circuit Court, however.

Deputy Callanan

Perhaps Mr. Fitzpatrick might define what he means when he says "steps to the court". Do they actually go into the court? Where is it all settled? I know that he cannot——

Mr. Fitzpatrick

No, I can, since at that stage it has not gone to the Judiciary. If one walks into any court, one will see that cases are being negotiated and settled from 9 o'clock onwards and especially as the clock gets closer to 11. The reality is that bargaining is going on and that there is an element of psychological nerves, with people waiting to see who blinks first. It is negotiation akin to industrial relations. It is a question of who will hang on the longest and who blinks first. I do not want to simplify it too much, but it is bargaining and straightforward negotiation, and that is why it goes to the wire, because the psychological moment is the wire when 11 o'clock comes and the judge is ready to come out. That is why many of them settle on the morning of the court. It is a question of technical negotiation.

Deputy Callanan

Is it necessary to have two barristers like that?

Chairman

On one side.

Deputy Callanan

On both sides.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

In law, people go in and litigate for themselves, with no solicitor or barrister, so there is nothing in law to prevent someone from going alone to do it. There is an increasing number of litigants in all courts, and that is a choice for them. There is no legal requirement to have any number of solicitors or barristers at all.

Deputy Callanan

I take it that the idea that it is settled inside the court rather than outside does not give them any more money in Mr. Fitzpatrick's view. I know that he cannot answer that straight out.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

If it is settled before the court starts, the costs associated with a court hearing obviously do not arise. What costs are incurred up to that point we would not know. It is logical to assume that the earlier it is settled, the lower the costs should be.

Senator Hanafin

I welcome Mr. Fitzpatrick and the team from the Courts Service. I also welcome the work they are doing in modernising buildings, introducing computer technology and ensuring that there is specialised training for the commercial court and so on. In the past, this committee has been scandalised by a specific sector of the legal profession profiteering from personal injuries by charging massive fees to such a degree that, at one stage, it created a difficulty for the national economy because it made us uncompetitive. We were losing jobs and it was reflected down the line to insurance costs and even people's ability to obtain insurance. Our thinking has specifically been that we must clean that up, and the PIAB and the MIAB are part of that.

I notice under point six that the Courts Service is considering charging legal professionals a fee for the use of the courts when they are in them. That is the Scottish system. It seems a sensible approach because every time one forms the impression that they are reinventing the wheel, starting right at the beginning of case law and going on to No. 17, when it is time for lunch. By the time they get to No. 33 in the afternoon, it is time to adjourn, and they come back the next day. They will do that again, after which the other side will do the same. That does not justify their high fees. If they could get to the point quickly, it would be a great help. We have been scandalised and want to see that cleaned up.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I was really addressing the cultural issue and the use of valuable court time. I was explaining what they do in Scotland. However, in the commercial court, for example, where we have invested heavily in technology, there will be a charge which is different from the ordinary fee for issuing a summons. There is a charge in the commercial court, and there may well be merit in that. It certainly focuses the mind if people are paying for time.

Chairman

Mrs. Justice Denham recently issued a paper showing that the number of judges per head of population in Ireland was much lower than in any other country. Are there plans to address that? Are all the new buildings and services that the Courts Service is providing television-friendly, should it be decided that all or some courts should be televised?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

They are all technology-enabled, and every conceivable technological requirement has been provided for. The issue of television coverage is another day's work entirely.

Chairman

Mr. Fitzpatrick does not envisage it.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It is something that the judges would have to consider, but some of the experience in America, for example, would——

Deputy Howlin

Judge Ito.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

There is concern in America that high-profile trials in particular become far longer if public. That is one of the biggest concerns. The paper delivered by Mrs. Justice Denham illustrates vividly that the number of judges in Ireland is low compared with other countries. I would be happy to provide a copy of the paper. The figure is one judge per 38,000 people here, but one per 26,000 in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. However, in some European countries such as Latvia, the figure is one per 5,000. It is not a straightforward comparison with such countries, since they have a different system and judges have a different, much more investigative role. However, even in comparison with the common law jurisdictions, which do not include most European countries, but take in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America, England and Ireland, we have far fewer judges. The comparison does not allow for the fact that most other countries have very large numbers of magistrates - several thousand - who do much of the work that District Court judges do here. There is an ongoing demand for additional judges and, ultimately, it is a matter for the Government, but the president and board of the Courts Service will be pursuing the matter. Obviously that applies not only to judges but also to the resources that go with judges, such as registrars. However, the comparison is interesting. We have far fewer judges by a long way.

Deputy McHugh

Would it be in order to ask the Courts Service for the scales of fees for the various professionals in the different courts?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I do not think that even we have that. Some fees are provided for in the court rules, and we can certainly let the committee have that information, because it is public. Is Deputy McHugh asking about legal fees or court fees?

Deputy McHugh

I am asking about the fees for various professionals, such as engineers.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

We do not have that information.

Deputy McHugh

What about the fees for expert witnesses?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

No, we do not have that information, but the taxing masters might receive it. We got a request from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board for information on the taxation of costs and discussed it with the taxing masters who are happy to make available the information that they have on it provided that they are legally entitled to do so. The county registrars are also happy to do the same.

Chairman

If that information becomes available, will Mr. Fitzpatrick make it available to the clerk of our committee?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Once the taxing masters are entitled to make it available to the PIAB, we would happily do likewise to the committee.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Ryan and Ms Ryan for attending. Their presentation was useful and we look forward to working with them for the next three years, which is the length of this governmental run.

Deputy Howlin

The Chairman always says that.

Chairman

I know that the Opposition is listening attentively. It is nice to see that this morning is no different.

We need the assistance of Mr. Fitzpatrick and his colleagues. I thank them for attending the committee meeting to give us that assistance and to provide information.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to do so and for the courtesy that has been extended to us.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.45 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 March 2004.