John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to make some brief points on the Court of Appeal Bill, which I welcome and support. I saw only part of the Minister's contribution in which she outlined that she hopes to have the court in operation by the start of the next legal term.

This is an issue that has been waiting to be resolved for a number of years and the introduction of this legislation follows on from the referendum last year to introduce a court of appeal. I will not rehash the points made by previous speakers but there are massive delays in our legal system that have an immediate impact on families, individuals and businesses because of the absence of a court of appeal. The Supreme Court, which is the ultimate appellate court, has been clogged in recent years and focusing more of its time than was originally intended when the Constitution was drafted hearing appeals from decisions of the High Court.

It is interesting to examine some of the information on the establishment of the Court of Appeal. In the 1960s there were five Supreme Court judges and now there are ten. There were seven High Court judges; I did not realise the number was so low. I understand there are now 36.

We have seen a huge increase in the workload of the Supreme Court and the High Court, and in the Circuit and District Courts. The role of the Supreme Court has changed substantially from what was originally envisaged, namely, to examine matters such as legislation referred by the President after consultation with the Council of State, the constitutionality of legislation passed by the Oireachtas, and other such matters. It was a deliberative court set-up but in recent years much of its time has been taken up hearing appeals from the High Court, which was not to be its main function.

Appeals will continue to be heard by the Supreme Court in a limited number of instances. That is necessary and important, but it is hoped that the establishment of the Court of Appeal will see the end of delays of three or four years in hearing appeals. Deputy Harris is correct that justice delayed is justice denied. It is a bit of a cliché but it is the truth, and in this instance it is apt to what we are discussing. That is why I am delighted the Minister is in a position to establish the court before the next legal term begins.

I apologise for not hearing the Minister's entire contribution but on the construction of the new Court of Appeal, how is it envisaged to deal with cases either currently before the Court of Criminal Appeal or in the system? What will be the transitional arrangement? The Minister might outline in her concluding comments the way those cases will be dealt with.

I echo the points Deputy Harris made on the free legal aid system. As politicians, we often get complaints in that regard. It is a tricky situation in the sense that the general public often correctly believes it is inappropriate that people with multiple convictions continuously avail of free legal aid at the expense of the taxpayer. The overriding purpose of our legal system must be to ensure that those people who cannot afford to defend themselves have the right to put up a defence in court. They are two conflicting positions. While the rates paid to lawyers under the free legal aid system as it currently operates have been reduced, that service is essential. People who find themselves in court may lose their liberty for a long period of time, and they have a right to a defence. I support the free legal aid service.

On the issue of family law matters, I welcome Deputy Harris's reference to the number of reforms the Government introduced in the Department of Justice and Equality in particular but also in the courts. Access is being given, partially at least, to reporting some of the judgments of the family law courts and I understand written judgments are now coming into play in the family law courts where a series of inconsistencies that may have existed in the past will not, hopefully, prevail in the future.

I agree with the point the Deputy made on the case in question. It seems harsh that a family member would have to go back into court, under order of the court, because of an error in drafting. The changes initiated by the Minister's predecessor on lifting the veil on some of the operations of the family law courts will lead to more consistency in terms of judgments. The fact that judgments are being reported upon and written judgments handed down should lead to more consistency, and under that proposal it is hoped the situation Deputy Harris outlined will not happen in the future. The Minister might correct me if I am wrong about that but I understood that was the case following some of the legislative changes introduced by the former Minister, Deputy Shatter.

The Minister might outline the current position with regard to cases before the Court of Criminal Appeal in the transitional period. I fully welcome this important legislation, as I am sure do all the absent Members of the House.

See this speech in context