Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter. As I recently outlined to her in reply to a parliamentary question, the Courts Service has informed me that at present, there are nine High Court cases and one Supreme Court case in which judgments are awaited for between three and six months. I have also been advised that there are 15 cases in the High Court and 19 cases in the Supreme Court in which judgments have been reserved for in excess of six months. Three of these have awaited judgment in the High Court for over 12 months and seven have awaited judgment in the Supreme Court for over 12 months. The corresponding figures for judgments awaited for less than three months are 50 cases in the High Court and four cases in the Supreme Court.

This is of significant concern as under the European Convention on Human Rights, member states are obliged to ensure excessive delays do not occur in domestic proceedings. Article 6(1) of the convention establishes the right to a fair trial, and within this provision "trial within a reasonable time" is protected. The length of trial is measured up to the moment the national judgment becomes final. Therefore, the length of time a judge takes in giving judgment is considered when establishing whether there has been a violation of Article 6(1). If this right is found to have been violated, as in the case of McFarlane v. Ireland, the injured party may be entitled to compensation. Notwithstanding the independence of the Judiciary, it is incumbent on the Government and the Judiciary to take all possible steps to ensure delays do not become excessive.

As the House will appreciate, the delivery of judgments following completion of a court hearing is a matter for the Judiciary and the presidents of the courts who are independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, subject only to the Constitution and the law.

In addition, within my area of responsibility as Minister, I have an obligation to take action to seek to address particular problems as they arise, including those arising through legislation. Following the decision in the McFarlane case, I established an expert group on Article 13 of the convention to consider how delays might be remedied. I look forward to considering the group's report when it is completed.

I understand the Chief Justice has brought forward a welcome series of initiatives to facilitate a review of the reserved judgments list in the Supreme Court on an ongoing basis, including the implementation of an electronic database of the list. Active management of the list is being facilitated by a series of processes which have been put in place by the Chief Justice to minimise current delays and to establish new systems for the future. Considerable progress has been made in reducing delays generally.

I am also informed that the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court regularly meet with senior officials of the Courts Service to review matters relating to the operation of the courts in order to ensure efficiency in the disposal of court business. In addition, where possible, supports are provided to assist judges in the preparation of judgments, including the engagement of judicial fellows and judicial research assistants. I am informed that the introduction of such assistants since 2008 to assist High Court judges has had a positive impact in addressing delay.

In addition, there is a register of reserved judgments in civil proceedings which was introduced in 2005. It provides that if a judgment is not delivered within two months from the date upon which it was reserved, the president of the court which heard the case must list the proceedings before the judge who reserved judgment at two-month intervals. That judge must specify the date on which he or she proposes to deliver the judgment. The register provides a mechanism to remind judges of outstanding judgments, and supports the Chief Justice or the President of the High Court in ensuring that judges who need it can be given time out of court to write reserved judgments.

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court operates a priority list to expedite urgent cases such as those that arise under the Hague Convention in regard to child abduction and European arrest warrant appeals and these are automatically prioritised. In other cases, a party may apply to the court for priority if urgency or another basis for the application can be shown. The President of the High Court has also been proactive in reducing delays experienced in judicial review proceedings in asylum and immigration cases in which leave has been granted, and the court has held additional hearings before vacation periods to reduce backlogs and delays.

The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers which monitors how member states implement ECHR judgments has recently recorded satisfaction with how Ireland is progressing in dealing with delay. For this reason, I am most anxious to ensure that we do not regress and I very much welcome the Chief Justice's recent initiatives in this regard.

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I appreciate her legitimate interest in ensuring the efficient and effective administration of justice in Ireland and I recognise the importance of ensuring that when a hearing of a case is concluded, judgment is delivered within a reasonable timeframe in the interest of the parties to the proceedings.

See this speech in context