Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo some of the points raised by the Acting Chairman. The statistic that we have approximately 3.3 judges per 100,000 of population, compared with the European average of 18 or 21, is one to which I often refer. The recently retired President of the High Court, Ms Justice Mary Irvine, has looked for more judges, as has the current President of the High Court, with both making the case that the administration of justice is slowly grinding to a halt without further judges. We must bear in mind, however, that approximately 80% of cases in the country are at the lowest level, that is, in the District Court. That is where family law cases are being taken and it is where we also do not have enough judges. It is a drum I have been banging quite a lot. I do not know what consultations Ms Jourová has had on the matter but members of the Judiciary and recently retired superior court judges such as former Chief Justice Mr. Frank Clarke have spoken eloquently and publicly about the challenges to accessibility that are caused by a lack of judges and funding.

Another issue is that civil legal aid is very restricted in this country. I do not know how it compares with other jurisdictions but, within the legislation for civil legal aid, there are plenty of areas where it cannot be granted, depending on the nature of the action. That limits it. Through the years, a wide variety of community NGOs, free legal aid centres and community law mediation centres have called for reform of civil legal aid. Even before we get to the matter of funding and budgets, which is always a more difficult issue, the basic structure of civil legal aid is not good enough.

There is a tendency to keep creating new quasi-judicial bodies - I do not know if that translates well - such as an arbitration board to hear a particular issue or right. I refer to the Workplace Relations Commission, for example. Quite often, these bodies are heralded as taking decisions away from the courts and, therefore, making them quicker, cheaper and more accessible - all the things Ms Jourová spoke about. In reality, however, it is often the case that they do not so or that their procedures are limited and do not deliver fairness. A recent big case here will have significant unintended consequences in that context. It is said that the justice administered in these bodies cannot fall below the standard that pertains in the courts. That creates a significant problem because if sworn testimony, cross-examination and public hearings must be allowed, then it is logical for free legal aid to be provided as a shield for those who do not have the status to hire an expensive lawyer. It is a shield for their fundamental rights. If that legal aid is being provided in the courts, why is it not being provided at those other bodies? The Chief Justice has a juicy quote in his decision in this regard. That is an interesting precedent, the consequences of which are yet to play out, particularly in terms of all those judicial bodies, complaints boards and the Data Protection Commission. I believe that it will also start something in respect of civil legal aid. I stress that when it comes to civil legal aid, it is not just the issue of funding; it is the breadth of it and what is excluded and what is not. That needs fundamental reform.