Mr. Conor Dignam:

The system that is proposed is that the assessor would decide and that the award would then be approved by the High Court. Where, for the sake of argument, the assessor would decide without the State being involved in the assessment, it would then go to the High Court without the State being involved and the High Court would approve the award. The State would have a right of appeal against that award and the appeal would go to the High Court. FLAC's concern is that the same court would be deciding on the award and the assessment. We do not regard that, on the level of principle, as being a difficulty because High Court judges, day in, day out, have to exercise independent judgment and engage in independent decision-making. Therefore, we do not see a difficulty with a High Court judge hearing an appeal where a different High Court judge has already approved the award. This is because they would be hearing different arguments and would have the benefit of the argument made by the State. What we do believe it underlines is that the drafters of the heads of Bill have identified that the question of compensation for a delay in proceedings is a very significant issue, so significant that it warrants the High Court being involved in deciding that the award is an appropriate award. To us, that underlines that the matter is so significant it should actually be determined by the courts in the first instance rather than an assessor. Other than somebody in drafting the heads of the Bill having identified it as a significant issue, we do not see any other reason the High Court could be involved. If the High Court is to be involved in approving the award in the first place, why not simply have the courts determine the substantive issue and the quantum of damages? I refer to putting it into the Circuit Court, if it is to be consistent with section 3A, or such other courts as the Oireachtas may determine to be appropriate.