Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are several welcome and overdue measures in the Bill, which I am happy to support. The Minister has considerable experience in family law and I am sure he has brought that to bear in presenting this legislation. The reforms relating to the in camera rule in family law cases represent a better alternative to the outright ban on reporting that is currently in place. The legislation broadly strikes the correct balance between the rights of vulnerable children and families not to have their privacy intruded upon during a difficult time for them, and the public interest in seeing the administration of justice. The Law Reform Commission did a decent piece of work on this 15 years ago, which is only finding its way into legislation now. In allowing greater transparency of the workings of the court in these cases, many precautions must be taken to ensure that no adverse attention is paid to children and young adults and that their anonymity is never compromised. In her contribution in the other House, Senator Jillian van Turnhout rightly drew the Minister's attention to the negative outcomes for children if identifying information is inadvertently placed in the public domain. In small locations, people can easily be identified from distinctive facts. Great caution, therefore, must be taken. This can lead to lifelong damage and a heavy burden for a child to bear. I recall a local court case in Kildare. It was not taken in the family court but it focused heavily on the family and they ended up having to move away. It was an extreme response but it was the response they felt was needed. Senator van Turnhout also suggested that the Minister proof any guidelines he issues against the Council of Europe guidelines on child-friendly justice, and I support that call.

Like others, I would like the definition of bona fide representatives of the press to be clarified. It is important that we hear from the Minister about how he might define that because it is not defined in the legislation. The media are changing rapidly. There is much more online activity and what one might define as media now could be quite different in ten years. When the legislation was debated in the Seanad, Sinn Féin sought an accreditation process for journalists. It would be useful to hear the Minister's comments in this regard.

Dearbhail McDonald wrote a thoughtful paper a while ago in which she said that although the blanket ban on reporting was more or less designed to protect the privacy of families and children embroiled in family law cases,

the unwarranted and disproportionate secrecy is an affront to the public interest and families seeking justice in the court. No one, including the media, expects the veil of secrecy to be lifted entirely in family law cases but it should be pierced sufficiently to enhance public confidence in the family law courts.

Previous speakers referred to the perceptions that have built up about how the family court functions. We could have a better understanding of that by seeing how cases go through the court. That would give people confidence in our legal system.

Deputy Pringle referred to the perceived unequal struggle of fathers, which Dearbhail MacDonald also mentioned. We cannot take that as a guarantee until we see the system functioning. That would be most helpful in gaining a better understanding.

The increases in monetary limits in both the district and criminal courts to €15,000 and €75,000, respectively, are based on 1991 limits. That will allow more cases to be settled in the lower courts and, clearly, there will be a positive cost implication for the people taking those cases, but the capacity of the lower courts is an issue. For example, one often hears about inordinate delays affecting people who take civil cases in the District Court, and this may well add to those delays. Will the Minister outline how that will be handled? It is important that we do not overburden the lower courts because that will defeat the purpose of this provision.

The number of ordinary judges in the Supreme Court will increase to nine under the Bill. The courts of appeal are swamped. Mrs. Justice Susan Denham recently said "The current situation in the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal is unsustainable, it is untenable, it cannot be defended". She went on to say it was bad for the economy. Where there is a long delay, witnesses may have a different recall, their memories may fade or they may pass away in the interim. If we are to have confidence in our courts, it is important that justice happens in a timely way. I do not doubt the Minister will accept that is what is required. I am supportive of the general thrust of the Bill but I am interested in his response to the few issues I have highlighted.

See this speech in context