Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

This is an important exchange of opinions. I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I do not know if they had the chance to hear the recent contribution to the committee by Mr. Justice Bernard Barton. He is a retired High Court judge and a highly respected figure who presided over many of the main defamation cases for well over a decade. I was struck by the strong, compelling nature of that esteemed member of the superior courts. We are here saying the jurors would not be as smart as a judge and might get it wrong, but I suggest in human endeavour there is no guarantee anyone would get it right. There was also a contribution from Declan Doyle SC on behalf of the Council of the Bar in Ireland.

I am trying to drill down into this fervent, if you like, support for getting rid of juries. It appears to be categorised by arguing juries are unpredictable. If it is about the unpredictable nature of an award of damages, would the witnesses not reserve their position? It is jurisprudence and it is evolving. The case others have mentioned, Higgins v.Irish Aviation Authority, was, relatively speaking, a very recent case in the Supreme Court. Would the witnesses not let that case be fleshed out and give it an opportunity, rather than, as people might say, taking a mallet to it and removing a tenet of the administration of justice, namely, the role juries play in the common law, open and democratic world we are privileged to live in? Does that address the matter if it is one of costs? If it is about the unpredictable nature of findings of fact, the witnesses guests have heard from Mr. Justice Barton, who said we should leave it with them.

As in any walk of life, juries will occasionally get it wrong but let us consider the cost of removing them. They instil confidence in the system. It is a system you or I do not own, as it is the people's justice system. They are at the heart of it by virtue of the system we have and they live in the real world. The point that juries are a fundamental tenet of our justice system has been made by others.

The other big argument is about inefficiencies. Are we going to put all that at the doorstep of juries? What if we could address the inefficiencies caused by delays by resourcing judges in order that cases come to court quicker and getting rid of facetious, frivolous claims at an early stage? I respect the contributions. They were refreshing but is this really a black-and-white issue? Is there no middle ground here? Is getting rid of juries really a silver bullet which will remove all the ills we complain about? Do the witnesses not accept the competing nature of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and a person's right to his or her reputation? They are countervailing rights. It is a radical move to remove juries in defamation trials that have served us for centuries. I ask the witnesses to address the questions I raised regarding the Supreme Court case, whether other efficiencies can be made in the system and the price we would pay for moving away from the position where the public has confidence in and ownership of a system in which we are judged by our peers. Those are the three main issues.