Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of the Bill is to provide a remedy for litigants who, through no fault of their own, find themselves involved in proceedings that do not conclude within a reasonable time. This is a sensible proposal from the Government. It is also a necessary proposal. The House may be aware that there have been a series of cases against Ireland over the past ten to 15 years that have gone to the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, and have highlighted what has been referred to as a systemic issue in the Irish legal system that is associated with delay. In the recent Keaney v. Ireland case, there was a concurring judgment by the current President of the ECHR, the Irish judge, Ms Justice Síofra O'Leary, where she referred to the fact that a series of cases had been brought against Ireland. She identified this as a systemic problem in the Irish legal system. It is also fair to point out that, in her judgment, she highlighted that there had been a series of changes in recent years that had reduced the problem and improved the situation for litigants. She referred to the establishment of the Court of Appeal and new rules of court and she identified that many judges had been appointed.

Notwithstanding all of this, it is important that we set up a new statutory body that will have the function of trying to assess what the remedy is for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in proceedings that have not been concluded within a reasonable time. It is also important to point out that it is not always easy to have justice administered instantaneously or quickly. In the criminal process, for example, it is sometimes the case that a person is arrested for a criminal offence, many witnesses are available and come forward promptly, and the trial can be processed promptly before our courts, particularly if it is an indictable crime. However, not all cases are like that. In many instances, there are historic and serious cases that make allegations against persons dating back 15 or 20 years. The investigation of those cases necessarily takes time and significant effort by An Garda Síochána. We need to appreciate that, although we should strive to ensure that justice is delivered promptly, that can sometimes not be achieved. The Garda has to investigate offences that are historical, it has to get statements from relevant witnesses, and it has to compile a file that it sends to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. The DPP then has to assess that file and make a decision on whether there should be a prosecution. At that stage, the accused has to be given information in respect of the documents and evidence against him or her. There are many situations where expert reports are required and either party requires an adjournment of the proceedings to ensure that justice is performed effectively and fairly. We need to be conscious that, although we all want to expedite the criminal process so that it moves as promptly as possible, we must not undermine the justice system in so doing. We must be cognisant of the fact that people are entitled to time to prepare their defence or a prosecution.

In most instances of delays in civil litigation, it is not the courts or the Courts Service that is responsible. The main cause of delay in civil litigation can be the tardiness of the parties to the litigation. Since we operate under a common law system, it is generally the case that the parties are given control of the progress of that litigation. The courts do not intervene unilaterally unless one of the parties seeks to expedite or strike out the proceedings. We need to be fair to the court system and the Courts Service and recall that it is not always the case that they cause the delays in the process.

As mentioned by Ms Justice O'Leary in the Keaney case, there have been significant improvements in recent years. We used to have a large backlog in appeals heard by the Supreme Court. To a large extent, that has been eliminated as a result of the establishment of the Court of Appeal. We have also introduced much more stringent timelines, which are enforced and have the effect of putting further pressure on the parties to ensure that litigation proceeds promptly.

Obviously, the best method of ensuring that justice is administered within a reasonable period is to ensure that the parties have access to judges, courts and registrars. There has been a significant improvement in the criminal process in respect of serious indictable offences that are due to come before the Central Criminal Court. Recently, there were up to nine courts hearing indictable offences in the Central Criminal Court. That is a significant improvement on what the situation was previously. It means that parties, victims and the accused can get their cases heard in a much prompter fashion.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has committed to appointing more judges. I believe we have 173 judges at present. I hope that, by the end of legislation that is going through the Houses of the Oireachtas currently, we will have up to 217 judges. However, we need to remember that, each year, approximately 530,000 civil or criminal cases are initiated. According to the report of the Courts Service for 2021, adding up the summonses and criminal processes shows there were more than 500,000 cases. As such, we need to ensure that we have a sufficient number of judges to deal with these issues.

We must recall that it is not just courts that administer justice. Quasi-judicial bodies are also able to administer justice on a local and limited basis. We need to examine some of those other bodies that affect individuals' rights. I am thinking of bodies such as An Bord Pleanála, the International Protection Office and commissions of inquiry, which were referenced in the Chamber earlier. They do not administer justice in the same way courts do, but they perform quasi-judicial functions. It is essential for the people who seek their services and avail of their powers that their processes are completed promptly as well. We need to consider extending the provisions of this Bill to those processes as well.

See this speech in context