Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Lowry. Part 3 of the Bill contains provisions on the arrangements for transitioning from the old appeals process to the reformed appeals process. Provision has been made for the treatment of appeals that have already been made and are at various stages of the process when the new appeals process comes into operation. An additional matter which has had to be taken into account has been the coinciding of the Bill with the retirements of both current Appeal Commissioners and the appointment of new commissioners following a competitive process conducted by the Public Appointments Service. Deputy Lowry's amendment relates to one of those transitional arrangements. He proposes an amendment to section 29 of the Bill which contains provisions relating to situations where the necessary steps have not been taken in respect of appeals to the High Court on a point of law against determinations of the Appeal Commissioners. The current procedure for an appeal to the High Court is by way of an arrangement called a "case stated". The latter is a statement of the facts as found by the appeals commissioners and the point of law on which the opinion of the High Court is sought. The practice adopted to date has been for both parties to the appeal to agree the contents of the case stated before it is signed by the appeal commissioner who determined the appeal. Due to the unsatisfactory way in which this procedure has operated, there are some unfinished case stated proceedings outstanding on the retirement of the current Appeal Commissioners. The Bill seeks to provide for this situation.

As a mechanism to facilitate the more expeditious resolution of appeals, the Bill provides that a case stated may be completed by a different appeal commissioner where the appeal commissioner who had heard the appeal had ceased to hold office before the completion of the case stated. In the interests of justice and as a safeguard for the parties, both parties can agree to a complete rehearing of the appeal by a new appeal commissioner instead of proceeding directly to the High Court. I emphasise that this is where both parties are in agreement. Where both parties are not in agreement, the new appeal commissioner may proceed to complete and sign the case stated for the High Court. As an additional safeguard, the High Court is given the discretion to refer the matter back for a rehearing by the new Appeal Commissioners where it considers in the particular circumstances that justice would not be served by the High Court proceeding to deal with the appeal.

The effect of the Deputy's amendment would be that the High Court could not order that such appeals be reheard by new Appeal Commissioners.

The Bill endeavours to strike a balance between the expeditious resolution of appeals and ensuring that the parties to an appeal are treated fairly in the unusual situation where a case stated is required for the High Court but cannot be completed by the same appeal commissioner who determined the appeal. Some of the unfinished cases stated have been outstanding for some considerable time and it is not desirable at this stage that they should have to start at the beginning of the re-appeal process again. The transitional provisions I have outlined were inserted into the Bill on the advice of the Attorney General’s office, which considered that provisions intended to ensure the expeditious resolution of appeals should be subject to the approval of the High Court which is best placed to ensure the interests of justice are not prejudiced by other considerations. This is a very reasonable approach and for that reason the Minister for Finance is not in a position to accept Deputy Lowry’s amendment.

See this speech in context