Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and its intention which is to address the problems associated with the significant increase in the number and duration of cases coming before the High Court and the Central Criminal Court. Without the addition of extra judges, the increases will mean justice is delayed. Therefore, having more judges makes a lot of sense to me.

I listened to the comments of Deputy Ross. The Minister of State might correct me if I am wrong but judges are currently appointed by the President on the advice of the Government, which is given an unranked list of seven candidates. While the Government is not bound to appoint anyone from the list, nevertheless these names must come to the Government through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. If we were to reduce the number of candidates from seven to five or three, that would clarify the issues and address some of the points Deputy Ross raised. It would also lead to greater transparency in the decision making if the Government were to appoint solely from that reduced short-list.

The memorandum provided to us by the Oireachtas Library refers to the international status and standard of our courts. We are the second highest ranking country in the world, second only to Finland. I refute the underlying allegations made by Deputy Ross notwithstanding the issues he raised and the veracity behind them. The fact is that our courts are perceived internationally to be the second best in the world. Why should we not be the best? I have no problem with us addressing the issues surrounding the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, reducing the number of named candidates, allowing for interviews and having the Government appoint from the list.

Deputy Ross referred to the removal of judges. It is a very serious matter for any Government or Parliament to wish or need to remove a judge. It is right and proper that the current system requires a two thirds majority of both Houses of the Oireachtas to remove a member of the Judiciary. Judges must be free and unfettered in their capacity to make whatever decision they believe in justice ought to be made. They must never be removed at the whim of a simple majority in Parliament of a ruthless and determined Administration that feared the outcome of decisions a particular judge might make. Such cannot ever be allowed. The process in this House some years ago concerning a Circuit Court judge involved a committee of the House. It was a long process but eventually the judge concerned retired or resigned before the process was finished. However, it should not be an easy process. It should require the consent of the vast majority of Members of the House. Then one could argue that the judge must have been in serious error and what the Oireachtas - it is not just the Government - was doing made sense.

I also wish to note the months and times the High Court sits. Everyone is entitled to a summer recess and I acknowledge the fact the High Court has held vacation hearings and, on occasion, hearings at weekends.

Perhaps it is time to look again at that calendar. Is justice denied if a case cannot be heard, unless it is exceptional, between the end of July and mid to late October? While increasing the number of judges will increase the overall number of cases that can be tried, we should also consider shortening the holiday calendar. That said, I acknowledge that judges have a very difficult job to do. The decisions they have to make require a unique commitment of time, knowledge, research and reflection.

It should be noted that a justice of one of our courts, Ms Justice Miriam Walsh, was assaulted last week while hearing a family law case, which was both appalling and disgraceful. I hope the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Minister for Justice and Equality will send on good wishes to the judge. The Government must also ensure that steps are taken to protect the Judiciary so such an incident never happens again.

The Sinn Féin representative commented on the Special Criminal Court earlier. That court is special for a particular reason, namely to protect juries. Non-jury trials require an extra burden of proof and extra judges. There is an increasing number of judges available to preside over exceptional cases which may involve firearms, explosives as well as significant and very serious criminal activity. I would prefer if we never had to use the Special Criminal Court and agree that it should only be used in cases where there is a significant possibility that either witnesses or jury members will be intimidated. It must be said, however, that the IRA, with its campaign North and South of the Border, would not have been defeated without the Special Criminal Court because convictions would probably never have been attained in the normal courts because juries and witnesses would have been interfered with and intimidated.

This is a good Bill. As Deputy Ross pointed out, it is very simple, with only two parts to it but it represents a start. I hope that further legislation which will bring about significant reforms of our courts system will be enacted in the period ahead.

See this speech in context