Introduction
A Cheann Comhairle, and Members of the House ,
I am delighted, on behalf of Ms Frances Fitzgerald T.D., Minister for
Justice and Equality to have this opportunity to introduce the Courts Bill
2015 to the House and I look forward to engaging with Members as we
progress the Bill through the various stages.
Purpose of the Bill
This Courts Bill is a single provision measure having just one purpose – an
increase in the maximum number of High Court judges from 35 to 37.
Section 1 of the Bill provides for a net change in numbers and, in doing
so, amends section 9 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995, as
amended by the Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Act 2007, to provide
that the number of ordinary judges of the High Court shall not be more than
37 – an increase, as I have said, from 35 which was set in 2007.
The number of judges of the different courts is fixed from time to time by
legislation under the provisions of Article 36 of the Constitution. The
existing maximum limit on the number of ordinary judges of the High Court
was set in 2007 by the Courts and Court officers (Amendment) Act. That Act,
as is the case with the Bill before the House today, amended the Courts
and Court Officers Act 1995 by providing that there shall be no more than
35 ordinary judges of the High Court.
The best part of a decade therefore has passed since the last increase in
the statutory number of High Court judges. Deputies will, I am sure,
accept that we have had considerable growth, over that period of time, in
the volume and complexity of proceedings and litigation coming before the
courts system as a whole. While it should be acknowledged that the pressure
on the Courts has been managed very effectively and professionally indeed
by the judiciary with the very able support of the Courts Service, in some
important areas of High Court business waiting times are longer than I
think any of us would want them to be.
The allocation of a further two judges to the High Court isn’t just about
addressing waiting times although the Bill will address in particular the
waiting times being experienced in the Central Criminal Court. The
reality is that it is more to do with enabling the Court work more
efficiently, for example by reducing the number of reserved judgements that
are handed down. I will return again in a few moments to the position in
the Central Criminal Court and the question of reserved judgements.
A separate problem, but one about which I know the Minister has concerns
and which should not be ignored, is the recent loss of a significant number
of judges from its ranks in the High Court, with a considerable
consequential loss of experience. Some of this of course can be explained
by retirement but I would also remind Senators that only one year ago no
less than nine High Court judges were appointed to the new Court of Appeal.
It has been widely acknowledged that the new Court has had a very marked
positive impact on the problem of delays in hearing appeals, and in
passing, I want to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the new Court
and the great progress it has made in the past year. However, perhaps
inevitably, there have been certain repercussions in the sense of the depth
of judicial experience that was drawn from the High Court.
Let me be clear that those judges have of course been replaced by a strong
cohort of new judges, but nevertheless the Minister understands the effect
of, and is anxious to respond to, the loss of judicial experience from the
High Court.
Another factor that I should mention that has had a real effect on the
progress of proceedings in the High Court is the increase in the number of
lay litigants. Generally speaking cases involving lay litigants can take
longer because of the relative inexperience such litigants can have of
court procedures. More and more lay litigants are coming before the court,
as is of course their right, but because lay litigants tend not to have the
experience of proceedings, there is a marked trend in these instances in
increased times for proceedings.
So various factors are leading to increased waiting times for cases to be
heard in some areas of the Courts and to an increase in the number of cases
not proceeding on days listed for hearing as well as a significant number
or reserved judgments.
It was to address these issues and more generally to provide for greater
efficiency in the conduct of its affairs that, having consulted with the
senior judiciary, the Minister requested Government to approve additional
resources in the form of two additional judges of the High Court.
I would like to explain in a little more depth the developments and trends
in different areas of proceedings before the High Court that underline the
business case for the assignment of two more judges.
Pressure points in the High Court that the Bill will substantially
alleviate include the number of cases where reserved judgements are given.
While there are good reasons for reserving judgements in many cases, giving
judges time to reflect on evidence and the law, the amount of these is of
particular concern to the judiciary. It is easy to see why this can be
most unsatisfactory from the point of view of all concerned, not least the
parties to the action or matter at hand.
Reserved judgements are frequently handed down in judicial review matters,
commercial court cases and chancery actions. The increase in the number of
reserved judgements can perhaps be seen as an unintended consequence of the
efforts being made by the judiciary to stay on top of waiting lists across
the various areas of court business.
Deputies will need no convincing about the importance of avoiding
unnecessary delays in criminal trials. In the Central Criminal Court, a
marked trend is the increasing duration of trials due to the greater
complexity of evidence coming before the Court. Waiting times here are a
matter of concern. The Minister is aware that recently the President has
found it necessary to appoint a fifth judge to the full time hearing of
cases in the Central Criminal Court. Currently waiting times for trials of
18 months approximately can be very difficult for all concerned and of
course particularly distressing for victims of crime and their families.
In many instances cases cannot proceed on the date listed for trial and
this has implications for costs for practitioners and witnesses. I know
that the Minister is particularly concerned about this and she anticipates
that the allocation of an extra judge to that Court will help to alleviate
this.
Medical Negligence litigation represents a sizeable portion of business
before the High Court. Because of the lengthy duration of most of these
actions, the President of the High Court makes a very convincing case for
the deployment of judicial resources to manage these actions at the
earliest opportunity. I agree fully that early intervention by a judge
offers the best prospects of limiting the duration of hearings by early
identification of issues which can lead to earlier settlement. I think
this would be helpful to families who are so often involved in these
difficult and upsetting cases. Better and proactive management of these
actions is likely to lead to savings in the amount of costs of litigation
for actions where frequently the taxpayer must foot the bill.
This is one of the reasons why the Minister introduced new legislative
measures for pre-action protocols for medical negligence cases as an
amendment in the Seanad when it was considering Committee and Report Stages
of the Legal Services Regulation Bill during the last two weeks.
The Companies Act is predicted to generate an increased level of company
law related applications to the High Court. These applications, many of
which relate to the restriction of directors of insolvent companies can
take a number of days of court time and it is estimated that at least one
extra High Court judge will be required to manage this business.
Judicial reviews of decisions of courts and other bodies where reliefs and
remedies are sought arise frequently in such areas as planning matters,
challenges to the constitutionality of legislation, Habeas Corpus matters
and debt cases. It’s a critical area of activity for the Court and more
judicial resources are needed here – practically all judicial reviews
require written judgements.
Conclusion
In bringing my introduction of this Bill before the Dáil to a close, I
should emphasise that while the effect of the Bill as I said is merely to
alter a number in the relevant statute, its importance must not be
underestimated. I consider that the Bill will, once appointments are made,
have a far-reaching and very positive impact on the work and output of the
High Court. I believe it is a very worthwhile measure to underpin the
efficient conduct of business right at the centre of the administration of
justice in the State
In summary therefore, while the Bill is a response to the amount of cases
coming before the High Court including judicial reviews, medical negligence
actions, asylum applications and company law related applications, its
specific benefits will be to enhance the efficiency with which the business
of the court is managed as a whole and how judgements are handled in
particular.
This Bill further represents the determined approach of the Minister and
the Government to enhance the efficiency of the administration of justice
as evidenced by bringing into existence recently a second Special Criminal
Court and last year the establishment of the Court of Appeal. And there are
further reforms underway to bring about greater efficiencies and streamline
matters in the courts including proposals for a new system of Family
Courts.
I thank Deputies for their support for, and engagement with, this important
measure. It represents an important step for the High Court and I look
forward to our debate on the matter and I commend the Bill to the House.
ENDS