Mr. Conor Dignam:

Yes, but I will address the Deputy's comments on the stress of court proceedings first. In many respects, that is what is being directed by the jurisprudence of the ECHR. An anomaly arising from the heads of the Bill is that a victim or complainant in, for example, a criminal trial who has suffered stress and damage as a result of delays in our system does not appear to be one of the categories of person who can seek compensation.

In relation to the delays, the two types of delay the Deputy identified are the ones which we have also identified. These are, as the Deputy stated, the delay in a case getting on because of the shortage of judges or resources in the courts system to enable cases to get on when they should, and also the post hearing delay of a judge not giving judgment expeditiously. Of course, the latter delay is not the fault of the judge. That judge finishes one case on a given day, takes up another case the next morning and when he is finished that case, takes up yet another case. The demands on judicial resources are such that it is difficult for judges to provide judgments in cases that they may have heard two, three or four cases ago within a reasonable and quick period of time such as to avoid any complaint or delay. Those are the two principal types of delay.