Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

A referendum was required to make the necessary constitutional provision for the establishment of the Court of Appeal. The referendum took place on 4 October 2013 and it was carried by 65% of the people. The new court will hear appeals from the High Court and the Supreme Court, cases on appeal from the Court of Appeal and, in exceptional circumstances, from the High Court. This reform will bring about a major change in the courts system and ease the four year backlog of cases at the Supreme Court, which will in future take only appeals on constitutional issues or cases of major importance. Currently, important cases of a constitutional nature must wait for three and four years to be heard. This should not be the case; it is simply not acceptable. I welcome that this legislation seeks to resolve this important challenge.

I refer to the issue of judicial appointments, which is linked to these changes. I launched the Reform of Judicial Appointments Procedures Bill 2013 early this year and it was debated in this Chamber. I launched it in the hope that it would put an end to the system of political appointees being made judges. Our Bill would amend the way in which the JAAB operates to increase transparency and accountability in judicial appointments, which is badly needed. Confidence in the justice system is contingent on a Judiciary that is free from political appointment or bias. It is essential that there be an independent and impartial Judiciary, which is representative of the community it serves. Future judicial appointments should be drawn from a wider pool of qualified candidates, which, in turn, would enhance confidence in the justice system.

For too long we have all been aware of stories the length and breadth of the State of judges being appointed with a wink and nod after demonstrating their loyalty to whichever major party was in government at the time. The days of the old boys and girls club that dominates the legal and political spheres in Ireland must come to an end. Such an approach has failed our people. The sheer number of politically affiliated judges adds to an embedded public perception of the Judiciary, which is that it is an elite to whom the law of the land does not apply equally. I appreciate the Minister has put in place the review process. The reform group is led by one of the most respected members of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice, Ms Susan Denham. She said shortlists leads to the perception of politically influenced appointments and such a perception undermines the Judiciary. That is important coming from somebody of her standing and character. Even if our Bill, which is almost identical to the proposition put forward by the Chief Justice, is not taken, her proposition must be.

We are calling for the establishment of a fair and accountable appointment and removal process for the Judiciary, which involves meaningful lay participation representative of the public interest. Sinn Féin believes that judicial independence is undermined by the current appointment process. The JAAB was established in the wake of the controversial appointment of Harry Whelehan as President of the High Court in 1994 and was meant to have removed sole discretion for judicial appointments from Government. However, there is still political involvement in the appointment of the Judiciary, as the JAAB merely provides a list of seven qualified candidates to the Government, which then makes the appointments of judicial office holders. The appointment procedures should be transparent to enhance public confidence in the process. The shortlist should be reduced to three and the reason for appointment should be outlined.

Fine Gael and the Labour Party promised a reforming government and an end to the "jobs for the boys and girls" culture but it is clear from their judicial appointments so far, many of their political friends, unfortunately, have been elevated. A report by Dearbhail McDonald in theIrish Independent a while back highlighted that one third of judicial appointees had a background in political parties in government at the time of their appointment.

I refer to the cost to the people taking such cases. Access to the courts and to justice is a constitutional right, yet the expense of cases can run into high figures, thereby acting as a barrier to people seeking to exercise this right. If cases move faster, the chance of reducing costs is better. The plan envisages that the new court of appeal will deal with most cases that are currently dealt with by the Supreme Court, which would, therefore, reduce the higher court’s workload and allowing it to focus on the development of the law. Cost is the issue that drove the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011 from the perspective of the troika and our international partners. However, we have discussed the heads of the mediation Bill and if that proceeds through the Oireachtas, that will have a greater impact on costs. We want people in family law and civil law cases to go down the road of mediation. The first instinct in a dispute is to go to a solicitor and cases drag on whereas trained mediators can prevent significant, unnecessary costs. I will work with the Minister to advance that legislation.

There will be two tests to decide what type of appeals the Supreme Court will hear: that they are of "public importance" or where that it is "in the interests of justice" that the appeal by heard by the highest court in the State. In "exceptional circumstances", where these tests of public interest and "the interests of justice" are met, the Supreme Court will hear appeals directly from the High Court. The Supreme Court, unlike equivalent institutions in other common law jurisdictions, is the court of final appeal, not only for constitutional matters but for all appeals from the lower courts.

Figures published last year by the Courts Service show that the court had received 605 appeals in the previous year, a 21% increase on the figure for 2011, and that it had given judgments in 121 cases, compared to 64 in the United States Supreme Court and 85 in the Supreme Court in London. I welcome the creation of a new court which will allow proceedings to take place within a reasonable time. An inefficient court system is costly because runaway legal costs hamper even small businesses and I welcome the initiative to end them. I offer my support and that of my party for the Bill and ask the Minister to take on board some of the concerns I have highlighted.

See this speech in context