Mr. Micheál P. O'Higgins:

There is. The emphasis has been on an examination of the subject matter of the proceeding and the level of complexity involved in the proceedings. The ultimate question that the assessor, the judge in the model we are suggesting, would be the relative causes for the delay and the justifications for it. It is not simply a question of the ECHR case law making this clear or a question of looking at the raw level of the length of the delay.

Rather, it is a question of measuring the delay and assessing how culpable it is in the context of the nature of the proceedings at issue, what was at stake for the litigant and whether the justifications put forward on behalf of the responding party passed muster. It involves measuring and weighing up justifications against one another with a view to arriving at an answer to whether the delay was unreasonable, has it been justified and is it just to award compensation by reason of the delay.

Something else that must be borne in mind regarding how the ECHR jurisprudence treats of this issue is an assessment of the impact the delay has had on the individual litigant. Some litigants are stoic and can deal with a lot of delay, such as, perhaps, a young person who is not terribly bothered. There are also people who are highly stressed, elderly or, perhaps, do not have long to live, or whatever the particular personal circumstances may be. All of these feed into the measurement. We do not suggest every case is hugely complex but many cases have these complexities. The drafters of the Bill seem to acknowledge this because they have provided that it should be a judge or retired judge who is the assessor. For this reason it appears to be common case that these issues are somewhat complex, or certainly have the potential for complexities.