Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I too am pleased Deputy Jim O’Callaghan has presented the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2016 this evening. Tosach maith, leath na hoibre. It is a tiny baby step, however.

Under the Constitution, judges are appointed by the President, acting on the advice of the Government. The existing system of appointment involves the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board submitting to the Minister for Justice and Equality the names of the persons who have applied for judicial appointment and whom it recommends for appointment. The Minister then brings these names to the Government which, in turn, submits its advice to the President. It all seems to be a transparent, accountable and fair process. However, the reality is different. The intrusion of political favouritism in the appointment of judges has been ongoing since the foundation of State. If it was not, then there would be no need to reform the current system. Goodness knows from what we heard tonight and from what we know, the system is in bad need of reform. Talking about reforming the procedures for the appointment of judges has been doing the rounds since 2013, or before that. I compliment the stance taken by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, who has insisted how members of the Judiciary are selected and appointed be completely overhauled.

Deputy Penrose, who is a barrister - he did not declare that, although he never hides it - gave a lecture recently in which he was scathing about the Minister, Deputy Ross, and about what he said before he went into government and what he is doing now. Deputy Penrose said that according to the Minister, there were two qualifications to be a judge, namely, know nothing and lose the election. While Deputy Penrose did not lose his seat, the Labour Party was fairly banished in the last general election. It is almost a shipwreck now. While I have great respect for Deputy Penrose and the legislation he has introduced, he can apply that to his own situation.

We must have a declaration of interests for judicial appointments. I sat for a long time in the Government formation talks, in and out with the Minister, Deputy Ross, and many others. There was ferocious resistance when I looked for a declaration of interests for judges to be part of the programme for Government. If they could have banished me to hell or to Connacht from Government Buildings, I would have been banished that day. There was ferocious upset and annoyance with me, as if I were off my rocker.

We heard Deputy Clare Daly's case and we know what goes on in the courts. There was the scandal of the CRH case and the judge. I brought some of the small families into this House, I have gone to court with them and I have attended CRH annual general meetings with them. The judge who was hearing the case, denied justice to ordinary families and small business people who gave employment and were wonderful people in their own right. They were gobbled up by this conglomerate, CRH, while the Competition Authority stood idly by. The judge was prepared to sit on the case when he had millions of euro worth of shares in CRH. When he was forced off the Bench, he declared he had forgotten or did not know he had the shares. When one is dealing with this kind of issue, there has to be transparency.

There are many good judges who work hard in the family and other courts. However, there are many bad ones too. Once a judge is appointed, he or she is a judge for life. The retired District Court Judge Pattwell, who was quoted tonight, admitted he was appointed politically. I know why and when he was appointed and who did so.

I was in the Circuit Court for 17 days on the most spurious of charges. The Minister, Deputy Ross, wrote a chapter in a book about it. What was allowed to be published, after the barristers dealt with it, was honest and forthright, showing part of what went on. I was singled out by a special judge when I looked for a special sitting. It suited everyone but my barrister said I would never get it. I did get it. The eminent judge I got was hand-picked by the party introducing this Bill to come down to get me out of this place because it did not want me in here. I have said this to Members privately but they tell me I am daft and mad.

I am sure Members will have watched the film "Double Jeopardy". I was meant to be in two different courts, the Circuit Court and the District Court, at the same time on the same day. This was totally unfair and it was impossible for me to be in two courts at the one time. My case went on for 17 days at enormous cost. There was naked political corruption in the case. Thankfully, I was before a jury of my peers and, after 17 and a half days of a sitting, they decided I was innocent of any charges. However, there was no redress. I did not get any expenses or anything else. I paid the price, as did my late mother and many other family members who were tortured in that way. It stinks to high heaven.

The good work done by judges is being negated by the craziness of some of these people. I have gone to the Four Courts with the New Land League, Jerry Beades and many others, trying to assist people. In one case, a poor woman was meant to be brought to the court in a prison van. I must thank the prison warders for being so kind to her by bringing her in a car instead. She was not able to stand up or talk. I could not hear a word of the recently appointed judge, who was not so long ago around here advising the Labour Party, Mr. Justice Humphreys. She could not hear him either. This happens in many courts. I protested by trying to stand beside her on the Bench as a lay litigant but I was not allowed to do so. Justice delayed is justice denied. Justice unheard is a farce. The lady was not able to stand but the judge would not allow her sit. The treatment was degrading, insulting and disgusting. Thankfully, she is out now and living in Tipperary, although she is from Cork.

One cannot hear a word that goes on in most courts. The judges do not care. It suits the barristers fine. They will do the talking while we pay up and shut up. It is terrible that in most cases one cannot hear a word as it is all done between the barristers. If one takes a case to the High Court, where up to 500 cases can be brought, one must have a solicitor, a junior counsel and a senior counsel. It is a racket. The barristers do not object to it because it is an industry. Out of 50 cases, 40 could be settled on the steps of the court against the wishes of the clients, like in my cases where people were claiming money from me for accidents. The whole barrister and legal system needs to be reformed because it is a cosy cartel.

Litigation is responsible for the 40% increase in car insurance prices. It is robbery and deceit. Insurance for families and young people has been hijacked, resulting in many not being able to afford it. One only need compare the number of whiplash claims in England to those here. The system is rotten. Many people face eviction from their homes because their banks have taken them to court or sold on their mortgages and loans to vulture funds which have done so. They have no hope when the judges sitting on their cases will not declare they owe millions of euro to the very same banks. I have been at more court cases like this than I want. They involve unfortunate people. The Garda is now being used to deny people like me going into the court as lay litigants. It is an abuse of power.

See this speech in context