Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports this Bill. The creation of a new court of appeal will alleviate the workload of the Supreme Court, reduce its four-year backlog and ensure that citizens have swift and less costly access to the justice system. The creation of such a court was advocated in our 2011 general election manifesto, based on a report we commissioned while in Government. The removal of the one judgment rule allows for informed dissenting opinions and greater consistency in Supreme Court rulings across the spheres of law. However, it is important that the Government overcome the unseemly spats it has had with the Judiciary and engage in meaningful consultation in the development and implementation of this legislation and future reforms.

The creation of a new court of appeal will facilitate the significant increase in the number of cases going to the Supreme Court, thereby reducing the long delays appellants face in getting their cases heard and reducing the resultant costs. The 2009 working group report commissioned by Fianna Fáil in government advocated the creation of a new court to reflect the need to eliminate undue delay in processing appeals, create an appeals structure which would be cost-effective, enhance the administration of justice in the superior courts and increase certainty in the law through the prompt publication of reasoned decisions from the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Susan Denham has previously warned that the failure to address the problem of delays in Ireland's appeal court system could damage society and the economy. Serious delays of up to four and half years in hearing Supreme Court appeals have an impact on the economy and on Ireland's international reputation.

The original legal infrastructure of the State was established in the 1922 Constitution and replicated in the 1937 Constitution. The massive increases in litigation and population since then have generated significant changes in the High Court structure. The constitutional constraints placed on the Supreme Court led to its remaining stationary in the face of the pressing need to adapt to new demands. The removal of the one-judgment rule was advocated by the Constitutional Review Group in 1996 and is widely endorsed by the legal profession as a step towards enhancing informed legal opinion and debate in the country.

Fianna Fáil is concerned about the unseemly public disputes the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has entered into with the Judiciary and we fear they may undermine the real need for a substantive engagement with the Judiciary on matters of critical importance. Tinkering with the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, must be carefully thought out and fully debated.

Significant shifts in the population of the country and its economic structure have challenged the legal architecture of the State to adapt to new circumstances and increased demands. A new court of appeal will help us tackle these problems. The number of High Court judges has increased from seven to 36, while the Supreme Court has only expanded from five to eight judges in the same period, thus creating a major gap in capacity. While progress had been made in the establishment of a commercial court to fast-track disputes, appeals from this court were still subject to the same delays as experienced by the Supreme Court. Unlike the Supreme Courts in the United States or the United Kingdom, which hear fewer than 100 cases per year, the Irish Supreme Court cannot filter out cases that are not of exceptional constitutional and public importance. This has resulted in a waiting list of up to four years. These onerous delays in Supreme Court judgments jeopardise Ireland's international obligations. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, member states are obliged to ensure that excessive delay does not occur in domestic proceedings. Ireland is also a signatory to a Council of Europe protocol which states that everyone convicted of a criminal offence has the right to have his or her conviction or sentence reviewed. Ms Justice Denham has stated:

The current situation in the Supreme Court ... is unsustainable, it is untenable, it cannot be defended. An appeal certified as ready yesterday is in danger of not getting a date for hearing until mid 2017.

Speedy resolution of disputes is important to a successful economy and the rule of law must apply if we are to ensure swift access to justice for all. The courts also perform an important task in supervising the activities of regulatory bodies and it is important that the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts be exercised promptly and efficiently. Delays in processing such legal challenges impede the efficient performance of regulatory bodies.

The removal of the one-judgment rule in Article 34.5 reflects the need for informed dissenting opinion in creating good laws and allowing appeals to future generations of jurists who will come to the law with fresh eyes. It also illustrates the need for consistency in the legal system, given that since 2003 judges have been able to declare laws incompatible with the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR. The no single judgment rule applies to the Supreme Court in respect of the ECHR. The single judgment rule does not apply to actions by the Government or State entities such as the Garda or the Prison Service.

It is essential that we avoid a breakdown in working relations between the Judiciary and the Government. Each has to respect the constitutional role of the other. We must not see a recurrence of the situation that arose last April whereby an apparent breakdown of that relationship resulted in the establishment of a new communications forum chaired by the Chief Justice. Any proposal by this or future Governments to introduce significant changes to the workings of our courts by way of constitutional amendment must be subject to full consultation with the Judiciary. This is why it is important that the Government and the Judiciary maintain a frank and positive working relationship. We are happy to support this Bill.

See this speech in context