Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, suspects are entitled to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe. It was reported in the media many months ago that the Council of Europe was monitoring delays in the prosecution of criminal cases and that the Irish criminal courts were breaching the rights of individuals in such circumstances. Such breaches could require a court remedy by way of compensation. The result of these delays is that defendants in criminal trials could be entitled to receive compensation if cases are extensively delayed before being heard in court. The Bill being proposed is an answer to this situation. Its aim is to provide for the right of a party to proceedings not concluded within a reasonable timeframe to seek compensation for extended and unfair delays. It is noteworthy that those defendants subject to such delays are entitled to seek State compensation. However, it does not appear that the Bill provides for any compensation for the victims of crime or their families, particularly where serious events have failed to be prosecuted within a court-determined reasonable timeframe.

Such court delays appear to be largely the result of a lack of resources in our penal courts system. We appear to have a significantly lower number of judges per capitathan our European peers, from whom the principles of this legislation are being derived. The issue of resources appears to cascade across our criminal justice and legal systems. Recent reports have highlighted that professional fees have been frozen at 2011 rates. In recent months barristers have gathered to protest over the Government's failure to reverse the cuts to District Court criminal legal aid fees imposed during the financial crisis. These fees stand in stark contrast to the legal fees that are available in the private compensation area of the courts system. Legal representatives have said that barristers practising criminal law in the District Courts are paid €25.20 for a remand hearing, €50.40 for a plea in mitigation at a sentencing hearing and €67.50 for a full trial hearing. The Bar Council chairperson, Ms Sara Phelan, has argued that the Department's failure to restore previous pay scales is a direct threat to the maintenance of the highest standards in the administration of criminal justice in this country.

How many times will the issue of inadequate resourcing across so many sectors of our society be discussed in this House but not addressed? Prosecution delays also have ramifications for our policing. Why should investigating gardaí and inspectors exhaust themselves trying to gather evidence that can secure a prosecution and conviction if their efforts are to be thwarted by our inability to provide adequate resources to run our criminal courts system? Parts of the Bill speak to the appointment of a delayed proceedings compensation assessor. This assessor will have to be a judge capable of making findings that compensatory delays have occurred. How can we find judges to occupy such a position if they are not available to our courts?

I understand that this Bill is required by EU statute but there is something inherently wrong with providing for compensation to plaintiffs for undue delays in criminal cases which occur largely as a result of our inability to properly resource our criminal justice system. It is a pity that within this Bill there does not appear to be any overarching proposal that will change this situation for families. This Bill requires additional work and further legislative supports to underpin the work of our criminal justice ecosystem and for that reason, I will monitor its progress through the House.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. It addresses one of the most fundamental aspects of the work of the State, which is timely access to justice. Public confidence in our courts system and the processes employed within it underpin the effective working of our courts. A lack of a sense of justice can have a corrosive effect on public faith in the courts and spread to other agencies and institutions of the State. Without public confidence in our institutions, we risk setting in motion a process of erosion that can, over time, erode confidence in government, politics and even democracy itself. We can see the risks that this poses. In times of crisis, we rely on our State institutions to help to guide our population through the darkest of times. It is for that reason that this Bill is so important.

The Bill seeks to establish an effective solution, or rather one of several solutions, to delays currently being experienced in court proceedings within the State. This must be a priority for the Department of Justice and the Government itself. As others have said, this follows remarks by the Council of Europe and other institutions in relation to timely access to justice within our State. Having been a member of Dáil Éireann since 2011, I am conscious that access to justice was an issue in relation to companies coming here for FDI purposes.

I note that the clock is ticking but I understood that I had seven minutes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are listed in one of the three-minute slots.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My list says seven minutes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know what has happened. There was an earlier seven-minute slot that you missed. We will adjust the clock.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that clarification.

The Bill will also provide for the appointment of a chief assessor and assessors who will be charged with assessing claims of breaches related to Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article states clearly that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Importantly, the assessors will have the power to award compensation to people who have not gained access to our justice system in a timely manner, where appropriate. The assessors will be in a position of authority to evaluate claims of delays in accessing the courts in the context of the right to timely court proceedings, as detailed in our Constitution. It is also prudent of the Minister and his departmental team to include in this Bill a mechanism to develop clear procedures for the assessors to utilise and to develop criteria with regard to rewards, importantly linking these criteria to the concept of just satisfaction. Just satisfaction, as detailed in Article 41 of the European Convention of Human Rights, sets out that where there has been a violation of the convention, and if the internal law of the high contracting party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party. These are important measures that will bring some level of reassurance to individuals who find themselves at the end of a long wait to access the courts.

It is important to ensure that assessors are appointed without unduly delay and that adequate resources are provided to them to carry out their duties. It is also important to note that the Bill will provide for scope for a specific right of action should a claimant or the Minister be unhappy with a decision taken by the assessors and that this will be facilitated by the Circuit Court, while also setting out criteria as to how the Circuit Court will address these matters.

This debate is opportune because the Minister of State and his Department have brought before the Houses in recent months a suite of measures and Bills related to judicial resources, the conversation having come up quite a lot. When I talk about judicial resources, as others do, I am referring specifically to staff support. That education and training courses will be provided is an integral element because no one will know everything and it is important that, like for many in the legal profession, there is ongoing training and professional development. It is only appropriate that this be afforded to judicial members and their support staff.

However, having adequate resources within the judicial system also encompasses court space. Clearly, with the increase in the number of judges, as highlighted over many years with our lower number of judges per head of population than most other countries in Europe - I think our number is the lowest - it is important we increase not only the resources but also court space. I had a reason to be in the Criminal Courts of Justice, CCJ, with the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, last year and it was quite extraordinary to see the space being managed in such an efficient way, with all the people milling around. At the same time, however, it has to be said that there is clearly not a sufficient number of courts of justice. Perhaps the CCJ is a bad example because it is a lovely new building and is being managed very well, but across the country, particularly at district and circuit level, it might be different. I will leave it to more learned Members than me to comment on that, but it is worthy of consideration as part of the package of changes the Department will make in respect of judicial reforms.

Finally, I echo the remarks of my colleague Deputy Shanahan in respect of fees. That has come up at my political party's parliamentary party meetings in recent weeks. It came up a number of years ago as well, and the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform might make every effort to try to resolve that matter for the criminal Bar because it is worthy of their attention.

I will end where I began. The delivery of timely access to justice is fundamental to our society. We must ensure adequate resources for our courts and institutions that will allow them to carry out their vital work on behalf of the people. I am very confident, given what I have said, that there have been significant moves to address just that, and I encourage the Minister of State to redouble his efforts to deliver as much effective and efficient court reform as possible. I look forward to achieving that goal with him.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Bill. It is a Bill of necessity and good practice. It is probably one of the most overused quotes at this stage, but what Martin Luther King Jnr. said in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" - that "justice too long delayed is justice denied" - remains true and relevant. Facing a court appearance, be it as an accused, a witness or a victim, is a stressful time in a person's life, especially for the victim, assuming he or she has survived. It can often be worse for the families: there is the suspense and the imagination of what the possible outcome might be. For victims and witnesses, it can also be a time of doubt, a time when they may wonder whether it is in their best interests to engage with our justice system at all.

This is necessary legislation as we have our obligations under Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights to provide the right to a fair trial in a reasonable period. The passing of this Bill will put that requirement on a statutory footing in this State. The Bill legislates for this necessity and outlines potential remedies if this legal requirement is breached. The enacting of the Bill on its own, however, will not ensure that trials are held promptly. We have a shortage of judges, and that has impacted the ability to deliver justice consistently and in a timely manner. I welcome the recent commitment to 24 new judges in 2023, with a further 20 to follow. Additionally, as the Minister of State mentioned last week, there seems to be a positive impact following the introduction of preliminary trial hearings. The handling of certain issues together in one of these pre-trial hearings allows for a speedier, more efficient trial.

I and my party agree that more needs be done to ensure that trials are held in a fair and prompt manner. In my home constituency, Limerick City, we have a state-of-the-art courthouse, opened in 2018. It is rarely if ever fully occupied, despite a large backlog of cases that need to be addressed. It has six courtrooms, and it would be quite unusual to see more than half of them in operation on any given day. Last week on the rollover call there were 246 cases waiting in the Circuit Court. At present, those cases are awaiting trial by jury. Those are just criminal cases. In the civil Circuit Court there are around 1,000 cases waiting. That is a huge backlog that impacts countless lives. Many of these criminal cases are for serious crimes involving drug dealing on a major scale and related issues. I recently tabled a parliamentary question on the utilisation of the courthouse. Subsequently, the Central Criminal Court began sitting in Limerick for a limited period. Even now, despite state-of-the-art facilities, no more sittings of the Central Criminal Court are scheduled for Limerick for the remainder of this year. It has been confirmed to members of the legal profession in Limerick that the Central Criminal Court will not sit in Limerick again this year. That must be reversed and the court must sit in Limerick again in 2023 to try to deal with some of the backlog which has accrued.

Does the Minister of State think it would be appropriate to direct a permanent sitting of the Central Criminal Court in Limerick, where there is a specialist criminal courthouse? At present, a number of courtrooms are unused every day. We know that the Judiciary is happy to sit there. In October of last year a High Court judge, Mr. Justice Paul McDermott, said:

Judges are very mindful of the extreme stress the cases this court hears can cause for people who are an alleged victim in the case. It’s important that when venues become available they are used.

He said of Limerick court buildings: "If it were available, we would be using it." The blockage is with the Courts Service, not the judges. I would like to hear what plans there are to make the maximum use of the new courts complex in Limerick, which was opened in 2018.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this very important matter.

In 2010 the European Court of Human Rights held in McFarlane v. Ireland that the State was in breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights as there was no effective remedy for a breach of the constitutional right to reasonable expedition. Article 6 guarantees that hearings must be provided "within a reasonable time", and Article 13 provides for the right to an effective remedy. This Bill provides for the appointment of a delayed proceedings compensation assessor. The assessor must be a former judge, and his or her primary function will be to assess the applications made to him or her and to determine in each case whether there has been a breach of the applicant's rights under Article 6.1 of the convention on the grounds that the proceedings to which the application relates had not been determined within a reasonable time, which brings me to the old saying, "Justice delayed is justice denied." If there has been a breach, compensation will be awarded. Any liability for the breach will attach to the State and not to any judge or court.

The background to the origins of this Bill comes as legal cases are extensively delayed before being heard in a court in Ireland. The Government has recently found itself in extremely hot water in Europe over delays to court trials and has been forced to introduce this legislation and compensation mechanism to crack down on the massive delays in court proceedings. We see this happening every day when an event happens and it takes literally years and years for the situation to come before a court. The Council of Europe is monitoring the Government as to how the problem is being dealt with, and Ireland is now required to submit an action plan and to take measures to resolve breaches identified by the European Court of Human Rights. The situation of delayed cases is now so bad here that in some cases people due to face criminal trial in Irish courts, some of whom could possibly be not guilty of the offences with which they are charged, have been waiting 24 months for an opening date. I ask the House to think about that. It is one thing if a person is guilty, but what if a person is innocent and is waiting and waiting and waiting?

It affects their lives and those of their families and friends, causing upset and trauma. They may be found innocent after all the time waiting. They are being robbed of all the months and years. I have referred over and over to the choice between money and time. Money is something that people can have or not have but time is not a luxury. We are allotted only so much of it. It is concerning to think that people are being robbed of their time by being denied the right to get into a court and have their cases heard, regardless of the outcome. It is particularly on behalf of those who could be found innocent that I am most anxious to state justice delayed is definitely justice denied.

The current waiting time for some murder and rape cases is up to 24 months. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Harris, recently announced, to much fanfare, that 24 new judges are to be appointed this year, with a further 20 likely to follow in 2024, which numbers combined would increase the total number of judges in Ireland from 173 to 217. That is to be very warmly welcomed because the Judiciary is so understaffed that it is causing a breakdown in the whole system. The sooner the increase is made, the better. I look forward to an announcement in the coming weeks in this regard.

Alongside increasing the number of judges, and very much under the radar or at least with much less fanfare, the Cabinet approved the Court Proceedings (Delays) Bill, which will legislate to allow compensation in cases where people experience undue delays in the justice system. This new compensation scheme, which could cost the ordinary taxpayer millions of euro, is being set up due to outright Government failure. It is yet another example of this Government's glaring incompetence around everything it is supposed to be doing. If it were more inclined to do what it is supposed to do and not what it is not supposed to do, we would have a better country today.

We understand that, on 2 March, the Irish Government submitted its latest action plan on how it is handling delays in both civil and criminal proceedings before the domestic courts, including in respect of how the State plans to legislate to provide more rights for defendants who experience undue delay in accessing justice. In the submission of 2 March, and as reported in thejournal.ie, the Government acknowledged how, at the most recent Council of Ministers meeting, in September 2022, the Council reiterated its concern that the authorities, namely the Irish Government, had not yet established an effective remedy in this regard, although it also noted measures taken by Ireland to tackle the issue of delays to date.

Consider the delays in the new Court Proceedings (Delays) Bill, which was initiated as a direct response to the 2010 judgment in the McFarlane v. Ireland case. In that case, the State alleged that Brendan "Bik" McFarlane was involved in an IRA kidnapping in 1983. He did not go on trial for that alleged crime until 2008. In taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights, McFarlane alleged there were unjustified delays in the criminal proceedings brought against him. He argued that the delay of between ten and 22 years, depending on the account of the Irish authorities, violated the reasonable-time requirement. The European court found there had been violations of Article 13, on the right to an effective remedy, and of Article 6, on the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr. McFarlane was awarded €5,500 in damages and €10,000 in costs and expenses. He had been acquitted of the charges in 2006.

The Council of Europe monitors compliance with European Court of Human Rights judgments, and while the issue is not seen as an EU infringement matter, in 2017 the Council transferred the McFarlane case such that it became an "enhanced procedure", meaning the Government is now in the embarrassing position of having to be supervised by the Committee of Ministers in its efforts to find a solution. In other words, it is being babysat.

The Court Proceedings (Delays) Bill creates a statutory right to a conclusion of proceedings within a reasonable time. It also provides for the establishment of an independent assessment process, under the aegis of the Department of Justice, to assess claims on the breach of the right to justice within a reasonable timeframe. A defendant involved in a criminal case can make an application for an assessment in respect to proceedings that have not yet concluded or that have been concluded within the previous six months. In other court cases, the plaintiff, defendant, applicant or respondent may also make an application. Under this Bill, successful applicants could be entitled to a declaration that their rights have been breached. They may also be awarded financial compensation for the delay in justice they have experienced.

We understand that any award of damages will be limited to the maximum awarded by the Strasbourg court, rather than having the Minister for Justice set limits on damages. In determining whether there has been a breach of rights, a number of factors will be taken into account, such as the duration of the delay; the complexity of the relevant proceedings; the issues at stake for each of the parties and the likely effect on the parties of the delay in the conclusion of the proceedings; the conduct of the applicant and any other party throughout the proceedings; the steps previously taken, if any, by the applicant to expedite the proceedings; the principles and practices laid down by the European Court of Human Rights and any relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, High Court or Court of Appeal; and any other matter which in the view of the assessor is relevant to the claim.

In its submission to the EU on this matter earlier this year, the Government drew the committee's attention to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in O'Callaghan v. Ireland and the Attorney General in 2020, stating it has demonstrated that, in some cases, compensation for delayed trials is already being paid out.

Carol Nolan (Laois-Offaly, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The principle behind this Bill is sound in that it brings about additional motivation to ensure people have timely access to our courts and, where this does not happen, to provide for compensation through the office of a newly appointed chief court delays assessor and court delays assessors. However, we have similar legislation in other areas of Irish law and it has not worked out so well in practice. An Bord Pleanála has a statutory duty under section 126 of the Planning and Development Act to ensure every appeal is determined within 18 weeks, beginning on the date of receipt of an appeal. Look how that has worked out. It has caused much frustration among people in rural Ireland, including couples trying to build near a family farm and others who want to remain in their community. An obligation to perform an assessment of need is provided for under the Disability Act 2005, yet thousands of children have been mired in the assessment process for well in excess of three months. Where is their compensation?

There is another very important dimension to this, touched upon recently by the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne. He spoke about how a stable, well-functioning court system that can give decisions within a reliable timeframe is an important part of Ireland's attractiveness to foreign businesses and feeds directly into Ireland's prosperity. I agree but I have been making this very point for some time with respect to projects like that of Banagher Chilling in Banagher, County Offaly. The extraordinary and unacceptable delays in this case were such that, as I said at the time, it was like someone shining a spotlight into the midlands night sky and saying, "Beware of investing here."

We saw the active threat that delays in judicial reviews can have on developments, including the Glanbia plant in Kilkenny, which was being obstructed by An Taisce.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court dismissed in February of last year An Taisce's appeal against the granting of permission.

For most people, however, it is not delays that are not the main problem in accessing the courts, but the significant costs involved with such access. I accept that delays add to the costs, but even getting your foot in the door can cost an arm and a leg and bring a normal person seeking the vindication of his or her rights to the brink of bankruptcy. Indeed, as The Irish Timesnoted recently, the experience of Irish court users is "poor", "costly" and "lengthy" and court information technology and data systems are "not fit for purpose". This is according to an independent report commissioned by the Department of Justice. That report suggested that the State may need up to 108 additional judges over the next five years. It was also noted that there were stark variations in waiting times for domestic violence applications in the District Court, ranging from a same day hearing in Dublin and speedy hearings in 14 other districts, including Athlone, Castlebar and Clonakilty, to a 26-week wait for a hearing in Nenagh, County Tipperary. The Government says that it is considering the appointment of several additional judges to speed up the process. However, I will make the point - one made by Mr. Seth Barrett Tillman of Maynooth University many times - that these appointments will not improve matters if the rules and traditions that guide the conduct of litigation carry on using the same or a similar procedural framework. In fact, it will just mean that whatever new courts we set up will continue to be weighed down by the exact same backlog in the exact same way as exists now.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím roimh an deis píosa cainte a dhéanamh maidir leis an mBille seo. Tá cuspóir aige córas cúitimh a chur ar bhonn reachtúil, maidir leis na cásanna coiriúla agus sibhialta, nuair atá moill míréasúnta i gceist. Tá sé tábhachtach a rá nach bhfuil an dara rogha ag an Rialtas ach an Bille seo a chur chun cinn go práinneach de bharr sraith cásanna, ag dul siar níos mó ná 20 bliain, ón Chúirt Eorpach um Cheart an Duine. Tá sé ráite go soiléir aici go bhfuil teip ar an Rialtas seo agus ar na Rialtais a tháinig roimhe seo. Bhí teip iomlán orthu córas a thabhairt isteach ó thaobh moilleadóireachta maidir le cásanna éagsúla.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which has six Parts and 37 sections. The Bill provides for a new framework for statutory compensation for breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in both civil and criminal matters. I thank the Joint Committee on Justice for its work on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Bill and for highlighting the issues. Its report, which was published in May, contains 13 recommendations. I might come back to those because it seems a substantial number of them were adopted completely by the Government, and just one was given a black mark, which is unusual. I welcome the committee's work and I will come back to the recommendations. The committee did say it was sceptical of the proposed non-courts model and it remains to be persuaded that the non-courts model set out in the general scheme is the most efficient way of providing a remedy.

A regulatory impact assessment was also carried out and, thankfully, made public. I have often said here that the regulatory impact statement has not been made public. In this case it has; however, all of the costs have been redacted. One of the issues that was raised by the committee was whether the non-courts model was the better one, but I cannot make any decision on that because all of the comparable costs have been redacted. I am not sure why that is. I went through the detailed regulatory impact analysis, which I welcome, but given that the costs have been redacted how can I or any reasonable person on the ground judge which model is the best? We are back to the patriarchal model whereby: "You don't need to worry about that because we know best. We have checked it and we have blocked out all the costs. Take our word on it." I have a little difficulty with that.

It is important to point out the background of this Bill. It was primarily drafted in response to a long line of cases decided by the European Court on Human Rights, which held that Ireland was in breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 guarantees that hearings must be provided within a reasonable time. Article 13 provides for the right to an effective remedy. Successive Governments have failed utterly to ensure that the cases were held within a reasonable time, and also to give a remedy when they were not.

As always, I thank the Library and Research Service for the very good Bill digest, which has highlighted points for Deputies. We have protection under the Constitution, which is very similar to the convention. Article 38.1 of the Constitution provides that "No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law". It does not expressly protect the right to a speedy trial in criminal matters. However, the interpretation by the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to a speedy trial is protected by the guarantee of the right to trial in due course of law.

While Article 38.1 is concerned exclusively with criminal trials, it is clear that the constitutional right to fair procedures contained in Article 40.3 includes the right to have civil litigation heard within a reasonable time. The entitlement to a prompt decision is an aspect of constitutional justice. The Supreme Court has characterised the right to an expeditious trial, as distinct from, though overlapping with, the right to a fair trial.

The focus of the Bill is the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it must also be noted the right of a suspect or an accused in criminal proceedings to be tried with a "reasonable time" is also guaranteed by a number of international human rights conventions, including the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.

In addition, the Bill also reflects the recommendations made by two recently published reports. I refer to the report of the judicial working group and the OECD report. I acknowledge all of that, but what is difficult for me is the amount of time it has taken to stand up, as has been mentioned by other speakers. McFarlane v. Ireland is the most significant of the long line of judgments. I will come to the judgment, which is dated 10 September, 2010. It has been more than 20 years since the ECHR first established that Ireland was in violation of the convention due to the lack of an effective remedy for unreasonable delay. We are not talking about ordinary or reasonable delay, we are talking about unreasonable delay.

The implementation of the McFarlane judgment from 2010 is currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It noted in September 2022 that "it remains a matter of profound concern that the remedy has not yet been established." The McFarlane case has been pending before the committee for 12 years and at that point 19 years had passed since the problem was first identified by the ECHR. It was stated that previous legislative initiatives had failed and that the authorities must act diligently and continue to give the necessary priority to the matter. In the 2022 annual report of the committee of Ministers, as Deputy Jim O'Callaghan has done, while acknowledging certain positive development, nevertheless, it indicated "profound dismay" that an effective remedy for excessive length of proceedings had not been established. In March this year, the Government submitted a revised action plan with particular emphasis on this Bill.

It is also important to note that since the McFarlane judgment in September 2010, there have been 27 cases against Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights, of which 14 resulted in a settlement or finding of a breach of rights. Notably, in April 2017, six years ago, the ECHR struck out the case of Blehein v. Ireland, following a unilateral declaration by the Government that there was no effective remedy under Irish law to deal with court delays and that this was incompatible with Article 13 of the convention. That was in 2017. It has been argued by this and previous Governments that there were remedies in Ireland, but the court stated that current remedies for undue delay were either prohibitively difficult to obtain for a variety of reasons or were very unclear in their scope and operation and, therefore, a new framework must be implemented if Ireland is to comply with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In Keaney v. Ireland in 2020, the ECHR noted that the scope of a damages action, the circumstances in which a complainant is likely to recover damages following delay and questions of quantum all remain unclear and in need of development through practice and case law. In O'Callaghan v. Ireland in 2021 the Supreme Court held that there were systemic deficiencies that were known to the State, which had the effect of delaying the appeal in that case. It went on to make a declaration and damages. It noted that: "Delay can deny even a just judgment of its value." This is of particular interest. It went on to state: "There is a societal interest involved. If people believe that courts cannot vindicate their rights, then they will come to distrust the law itself, and the system within which the rule of law operates...What is in issue is not simply an aspirational precept: it is a fundamental principle necessary for the upholding of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution."

The Bill sets out the criteria and primary objectives, including what the chief assessor and the other assessors need in terms of qualification. The chief assessor must be a retired judge with a certain experience. The ordinary assessors do not need to be a retired judge but they need to have practised for a certain time. All of that is set out clearly and I have no problem with any of it. My difficulty is with the length of time is has taken to get this far, with the Government arguing nearly every step of the way, notwithstanding that in 2017 it fully accepted that there was no remedy in Irish law, and here we are in 2023.

I have a concern that a parallel system of justice is now being set up with what appears to be a quango. I keep an open mind on that. I would like to have seen the costing of it. The application is supposed to be dealt with within six months, which I welcome; it would not make sense to have a further delay. It needs to be reviewed every year to determine if it is achieving its purpose and what the costs are.

To broaden the issue, we let our systems become absolutely dysfunctional. Education was already mentioned in respect of assessments of need, and there is also the health system in providing a public health system, as well as the law. We are then forced by international bodies, in this case, the ECHR, or other bodies, to make changes. If we look at the health system, it is not a legal issue, but we let it become completely dysfunctional and then set up the National Treatment Purchase Fund, NTPF, to deal with the dysfunctional system, which itself has become embedded in the system even though it was supposed to be a temporary measure. Regarding direct provision, we have an obligation to carry out vulnerability assessments. I have no idea where we are on that. From my reading, we are failing miserably. In education, there is an obligation to carry out needs assessments. We heard the Deputy from the Rural Independent Group outlining the delays in that area.

I recently heard an interview with representatives of the Irish Penal Reform Trust, whose figures are truly staggering for the number of prisoners on remand without their cases being dealt with. On 26 May, the trust's report highlighted worrying trends and the rising numbers of people in prison, stating, "33% of prisoners are on waiting lists" followed by a reference of the situation in prisons. The actual number of people on remand has risen exponentially. In 2017, there were 584 and, in 2022, it was 875. The average number of people being held on remand in prison is growing. There was a 23% increase in the average number of people held on remand between 2021 and 2022 and a 50% increase since 2017, when this project by the Irish Penal Reform Trust was started. The data indicates that people held on remand are spending longer and longer periods waiting. Of the data published for 2019, there was an average of 31 people on remand for more than a year. This increase to 79 - an increase of 154% - in 2022. The increase in seriousness of charges has previously been cited by the Prison Service as a reason for this increase. However, the Irish Penal Reform Trust says that further information is needed to interrogate this interpretation. It points out that remand detention can have severe psychological effects, with suicide rates higher internationally among remand detainees than sentenced prisoners, according to the Council of Europe. Research in Ireland showed that recorded self-harm rates are consistently higher for remand prisoners than for those charged.

On every level, there is a need to put an end to the delays in processing cases, whether criminal or civil. That we now have to bring in a parallel system to put compensation on a statutory basis is an indictment of how the courts system has been underfunded. This system should not be necessary. There should not be a series of court cases from the ECHR and monitoring in place by the Committee of Ministers to ensure we do the right thing. Going back to the previous Dáil, much time was wasted by a certain Minister in relation to the courts system, who was not even in that brief, instead of analysing the problems of access to justice. Access to justice has been repeatedly highlighted by the current and former Chief Justices in relation to how unequal it is. Access to justice and the need to improve it have been the theme of their statements over and over. Legal aid, while under review, needs transformative change to ensure people have access to justice with legal assistance.

I welcome the Bill most reluctantly. I wish there was no need for the Bill. I wish that, at a certain point in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to take it off the Statute Book because we have sufficiently resourced our courts system to make it what it should be.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The phrase, "justice delayed is justice denied", is often said. I think I heard it in this and in previous debates on the Bill. This arises from the McFarlane decision, which I think dates back to 2010, although the decision was also perhaps spoken about in previous rounds of appeals. On the positive, before getting into the legislation and the new scheme the Minister is bringing forward, which I welcome, it should be recognised that the McFarlane decision does not sit in a vacuum and has not been ignored. It creates a common law precedent which is in practice and followed before the courts and has been for more than a decade. The duty on the prosecution to seek out or preserve evidence is recognised and enshrined in the McFarlane decision. A situation should never again arise in which evidence is gathered in the course of an investigation and detection, be that a vehicle, fingerprints, CCTV footage, a still, a piece of real evidence such as a handwriting sample or a DNA sample, that is then not available to either the defence to vindicate the innocence of the accused or to the prosecution to put beyond doubt in the mind of a judge and-or a jury that the person is guilty of the crime charged. It concerns a piece of evidence so critical and important it could decide the case and is allowed to be lost, destroyed or taken away from the system that appears to be an egregious breach of fair procedures on every side, not least for the accused but also, in some cases, for the prosecution and in the interest of justice, which is what we are all supposed to serve when considering these matters. That is already being practised before the courts and has been for many years because it had an immediate effect when that ruling came into play.

The civil system is somewhat different, as previous speakers spoke said. In a civil system, a party makes a conscious decision to initiate litigation if they are the plaintiff or, on the other side, they are the defendant if they are being sued. If private parties meet in court or across a court, they control the narrative and pace to an extent. If one party chooses, neglects or fails to prosecute their case with sufficient vigour and speed, it is open at all times to the other party to make an application to dismiss on grounds of a delay, whether that is to strike out for want of prosecution or dismiss or strike out a defence for failure to issue or simply because the delay, in the famous phrase, was "inexcusable and inordinate", the balance of justice supports that it be struck out and there is no case remaining to be answered, often because the wrong complained of has been left to linger for so long it can no longer be considered as grievous a wrong as it was first supposed. No party can sleep on their rights, as is sometimes said. It exists in the private law context and is applied regularly; those tests exist and those motions are brought. It is part and parcel of the bread and butter of the courts system on a daily basis. I think Deputy Jim O'Callaghan said, which I endorse, that it is not always the fault of the courts, the Judiciary or the courts system. It can be the fault of the parties. Those parties could include the State or private parties but very often the courts manage and administer the system but are at the mercy of the parties engaged in the litigation.

When the party is the State, there is a higher bar and it is more difficult. It is very difficult to contest the State in any matter in any sphere. One reason for the high bar for criminal prosecution is it is acknowledged in the balancing act that justice must strike that the State, as a party, as a prosecutor has overwhelming resources available to it, as opposed to the individual defendant.

This is one of the reasons we have rules such as the presumption of innocence and that proof must be established not on the balance of probabilities but beyond reasonable doubt. It is also one of the reasons that the prosecutor in a case is not a partisan player who must get a conviction at all costs but instead has an overwhelming duty to the court and to the defence team to put all the facts before the court and to allow it to reach an objective decision based on the best information put before it. The system is built this way to give every chance to those accused to defend themselves and prove their innocence. One of the reasons for this is because of the grievous wrong that would be seen were an innocent person to be found guilty. I think it is the Blackstone's ratio that refers to it being better that 99 guilty parties go free than that one man be condemned. In any event, the golden thread of the criminal law says this and has done so for many centuries for very good reason.

Deputy Connolly mentioned Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, which is addressed in this legislation, and the decision that led to this invoked Articles 6 and 13. Our Constitution, of course, as solid and robust as it has proven over the years and as far-sighted as it was when it was enacted, has been followed through and elaborated on since. Article 38.1 includes the doctrine of fair procedures. These include the right to a fair trial and this includes the right to trial with due expedition in the courts of law without delays. All these things are fundamental tenets of the justice system, and especially the criminal justice system, but they are not always followed. When the State is a party to proceedings, it is all the more difficult to challenge it in return, unlike a private situation where parties meet on equal terms.

I welcome the implementation of the scheme. The Minister of State has talked through the details of what is being proposed. These seem eminently sensible and pretty much in line with our obligations. It should remedy the possibility of those issues I spoke of occurring in future. A sensible belt-and-braces approach is being used in how this will be applied. The assessor will consider the claim and within six months, which again seems very fair. An investigation into a delay should not itself be delayed. Many of these aspects appear to be self-evident, but I commend the Minister of State on bringing this legislation forward to give them practical effect.

I suggest a couple of other practical measures that could be weighed in the round along with this endeavour. We have already heard the number of judges spoken about. One of the reasons why court lists are busy in nearly every courtroom in the country is simply because there is not the capacity or enough hours in the day for the sitting judge or judges to process the sheer volume of cases coming before the courts. The programme for Government and recent announcements have stated we are to gain 24 new High Court judges, I think it is, in 2023 and 20 more than in 2024. These might be extra members of the Judiciary across all courts, but certainly a total of 44 new judges has been committed to by the Government. I welcome this development. It is badly needed. As cathaoirleach of the Joint Committee on Justice, one observation I make consistently is that almost every report that has come before our committee on a variety of topics, from data protection to gender-based violence to the family law courts and through to the coronial system, one of the recommendations made is that more judges are needed in the system, full stop. This is because any matter requiring a judicial determination must get to court and get there soon and we must have judges available to do this.

As an aside, I refer to the volume of work being pushed back towards the District Court level, even though in some cases this does make sense. The context of the new personal injuries guidelines, for example, will see many cases that would have traditionally been heard in the Circuit Court now being heard in the District Court. An amendment was also passed recently in respect of the new data protection legislation that allows cases in this regard to be heard in the District Court. Additionally, the defamation review coming before us shortly will probably envisage these types of cases potentially being brought in the District Court as well.

The new family law legislation is considering aspects such as divorces and significant family law determinations being remitted to the District Court too. I have concerns and questions about this in respect of something as significant as a divorce, which may perhaps end a marriage of many years, in the context of which many assets could be in play, including the family home as well other elements such as making proper provision for the parties involved over many years, as children mature. I am not certain the District Court level is cut out for these types of cases now. This is a significant area that I think should remain in the remit of the Circuit Court. As envisaged now, though, the family law legislation would suggest that these types of cases would be heard in the District Court. I am not sure whether this is appropriate.

Whether it is or not, the volume of those additional cases, including those in the realms of personal injuries, data protection and others, if they were all to travel en masseto the District Court, would mean that level of the courts system would be more overwhelmed than it is already. I ask the Minister of State to consider this aspect. I know he is very much aware of these situations and learned in the matter, but this is something he might take back and consider. I say this because I am concerned about how the District Court level would cope with this volume of litigation coming before it.

Regarding the appointment of judges, I am not sure of the breakdown of that figure of 44 new judges. I think the courts of first instance probably will have first call on them and the greatest need of them. The appellate courts are always important to determine a question of law, but it is the courts of first instance, the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court, where a matter is tried for the first time and where findings of fact are made and where the parties come before a court, give evidence and have a decision made, that are in the most dire need of intervention and additional resources.

I mention the District Courts being under pressure. If I can use an example from my area of Naas, this matter came up when the Joint Committee on Justice undertook the review of courts and courthouses. To call it the Naas district is a bit of a misnomer, because it actually includes County Kildare and west Wicklow. It is the most significant district in the court. It is the fourth busiest in respect of the volume of cases coming before it, and yet it has a single judge. Judge Zaidan heroically presides over that court daily and does his level best to manage the volumes of cases brought before him. The Cork district, though, which would be comparable, has three judges I think, while the Limerick district has two judges, if not three, and the Dublin metropolitan district has more than a dozen judges, if not closer to 20 or more, hearing cases. The Naas district is overpopulated in its caseload and understaffed with judges.

I have long said in this House and elsewhere that the district needs a second judge, which would help to manage the load. What happens now, unfortunately, is that justice is being delayed and denied because we see a block adjournment on many afternoons. Despite his very best efforts, the judge cannot get through 300 or 400 cases before him in one day. A block adjournment results. Defendants and plaintiffs, accused people and victims of crimes see their cases being postponed again and again with block adjournments. This situation cannot be sustainable for much longer. I ask the Minister of State to examine this issue. A commitment was given previously that a second judge for the district would be considered. I ask the Minister of State to look at this again and to respond in this regard.

I will mention another factor that exacerbates the delays we see in the system, again in the courts of first instance. We have recently seen industrial action taken by junior barrister members of the Bar, primarily by criminal barristers. They make a very good case. I have met with representatives of the Bar Council of Ireland and its criminal practice committee. They pointed out to me the context in this regard in respect of the unwinding of the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. We are already aware of the situation that has pertained over the last ten to 15 years where several professions and public servants and others had their rates of pay and fees cut considerably during the crash. We understand how and why this happened.

Almost all professions and occupations, however, have had what was lost under these cuts at least restored to the pre-cut levels, if not bettered. These junior barristers are probably one of the only, if not the only, cohort left that has not had their pay restored. I have heard it said that all these people are doing fine and scoffed at as all being fat cats, swilling champagne and whatever else. They are not. Junior barristers are lucky to get €25.20 for a day's work in court in some instances. The system is not fit for purpose. I refer to what happens when a legal aid defendant comes before the District Court on a criminal charge. A fee of €50.40 is payable to the lawyer, in a general sense, who takes on this case. That lawyer may be a solicitor who may delegate this work to a barrister, who goes in to do it instead. There will be a split fee arrangement. The €50.40 is split into €25.20 each.

The barrister must go home, fill in a form, fill in a report, file a return, file a fee note and process the administration for a bill of €25.20, which then gets submitted. If he or she is lucky, that sum may be paid some years later, or it may not. It is not a situation then of all these people doing fine and well for themselves. Many of these professionals, and they are professionals who have studied and worked hard and made many sacrifices to get to this level so they can go into court and work on cases of this nature, where ultimately someone's innocence is at stake, find themselves unable to make ends meet. It is beginning to manifest in even further delays. This is again about delays and cases being cancelled. In a recent case, no senior counsel could be found to prosecute a case. It is, therefore, happening on the defence side of things and on the prosecution side of cases.

Apart from the pittance these junior barristers get paid, if they get paid, indeed, one of the other issues is the way the system operates. In many cases, these practitioners are dependent on the goodwill and trust of the solicitor to see them right when the solicitor claims the €50.40 to pay on the €25.20 to the barrister at a later stage. It would make far more sense if a system was enacted in the District Court, as already applies in the Circuit Court, where the barrister walking into the courtroom fills out the form, the pink slip as it is sometimes called, in the context of a direct payment model being in place. It would cut out all this messing and all this uncertainty and risk involved for all concerned and provide a direct income to those professionals working in the courts at District Court level.

Another element is also overdue for re-examination.

The concept of the legal aid scheme and how it is applied in the District Court was introduced many decades ago, at a time when solicitors did the bulk of the work in District Courts. That probably made sense in the main. However, the system did not envisage a scenario whereby there would be something like the Criminal Courts of Justice and people travelling. There could be multiple cases on a list, straddling everywhere from Swords to Balbriggan, Tallaght, the city centre and out to Castleknock and beyond. When multiple solicitors are travelling an hour in and out of town for the sake of one case, it of course makes sense that they would delegate that work to legal professionals already in court for the date. The model of having a barrister taking on those cases is reasonable and can be more effective in some cases but the direct payment model has to be examined. It would make a lot more sense to consider doing it that way and give the respect to those professionals that they deserve.

The District Court is the workhorse of the courts. It is a volumes game. It is where the rubber hits the road every single day throughout the year, including during vacation and outside of term time when other courts have risen. A District Court judge has to preside over a huge volume of cases, including deciding cases, hearing evidence, applying the rules and doing all the things they have to do. They have to administer their own lists. The Circuit Court system has a county registrar, who put manners on the lists, organises them and decides which cases go into which week and which case is not ready to go forward and needs to be put back. There is merit to a county registrar-style system to deal with all of that administration for the District Court. In effect, a senior Courts Service official could be delegated and appointed to manage and administrate the lists and take that work away from sitting judges in order that they do not have to be bogged down in administration and can get on with judging which is what, ultimately, they are there to do.

There are many reforms we could look at but I hope my contribution provides some ideas for the Minister of State. I commend him on what he is doing in general. This measure will bring us in line with European directives. We are addressing the McFarlane decision and attempting to remove delays. There are many more delays beyond this, unfortunately. While I welcome the Bill, there is a lot more to be done.

Efficiencies can be driven and we saw during the time of Covid how the courts reformed and progressed. Suddenly, rather than people waiting an entire day for a case to be called there were time managed lists and people could log in remotely. There are many innovations, which were very welcome and sensible. We could probably embrace them in this House as well, in terms of remote working and participation in committees etc. There seemed to be a reluctance at the time to do that. I am a little bit dubious as to why that was. Privilege could well have existed outside of this Chamber. The Constitution talks about the Oireachtas meeting in Dublin or áit eile. That could well have been an Internet chamber and a broadband cable. If there was a will, there was a way. For whatever reason, we did not do that. We could perhaps look at that another day. It is probably for another debate. There is an opening for modernisation in the House when it comes to efficiencies and how we manage our business. I commend the Minister of State.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá sé go maith go bhfuil an Bille seo os comhair na Dála. Níl mé ina choinne i gcoitinne. Tá cúpla mionrud gur mhaith liom a ardú faoi seo. Ceann amháin ná go bhfuil post nua á chruthú sa Bhille seo agus níl an teideal Gaeilge á úsáid in ainneoin go bhfuil teideal nua i nGaeilge in ainm is dul le gach aon teideal nó oifig nua atá á chruthú de réir Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla (Leasú), 2021. Sa chás seo, ba chóir "ardmheasúnóir ar mhoille na cúirte" a bheidh i gceist san áit atá "chief court delays assessor" á lua sa reachtaíocht seo. The Irish title should be used.

Tá sé go maith go bhfuil sé seo ag tarlú mar tá frustrachas i measc an phobail, i measc iad siúd atá ag obair sna cúirteanna, agus fiú i measc na gardaí agus na breithiúna, maidir le cásanna cúirte atá tar éis a bheith os comhair na gcúirteanna, nó sa chóras i gcoitinne, ar feadh tamall maith de bhlianta. Is gá rud éigin a dhéanamh chun cinnte a dhéanamh de nach bhfuil aon mhoilleadóireacht i gceist, nach bhfuil moill gan bunús ó thaobh na gcásanna seo, agus mar a dúirt Teachtaí romham, go bhfeicfeadh daoine go bhfuil an córas ag obair i gceart agus é chomh tapaigh agus gur féidir. Tuigimid ar fad agus luaigh roinnt de na Teachtaí romham roinnt de na fáthanna go mbíonn moill ann. Tarlaíonn sé uaireanta nach mbíonn finné ar fáil ach go minic ní bhíonn an garda ar fáil nó ní bhíonn spás ar fáil sa chúirt. Chonaic muid thar na blianta go raibh uaireanta ann nuair nach raibh an chúirt maith go leor nó nach raibh teas lárnach sa chúirt i gcás amháin. Cuireann sé sin ar fad le moill ach níl ansin ach cás amháin. Chonaic mé cásanna difriúla thar na bliana a chuireadh ar athló arís agus arís toisc fáth amháin nó fáth eile. Is ar mhaithe leis an bpobal agus fiú ar mhaithe leis an duine atá os comhair na cúirte agus na finnéithe go mbeadh na cúirteanna tar éis déileáil leis an gcás chomh tapaigh agus is féidir. Dár ndóigh, tá sé de cheart ag éinne atá os comhair na cúirte cinnte a dhéanamh de go bhfuil an fhianaise i gceart agus ar fáil dóibh agus má tá tástálacha ó thaobh DNA agus a leithéid ar fáil dóibh, go bhfuil sé sin déanta, go bhfuil gach rud i gceart, agus nach bhfuil deifir á chur ar chásanna cúirte díreach ar mhaithe le duine éigin a chiontú nuair atá an deis ann. B’fhéidir go mbíonn gá fanacht tamaillín uaireanta. Ní hé seo an fáth ata an Bhille seo os ár gcomhair áfach ach toisc go bhfuil an oiread moille atá tar éis a bheith i gceist san oiread sin cásanna thar na bliana. Tá mise anseo breis is 20 bliain agus thar na blianta tháinig reachtaíocht i ndiaidh reachtaíochta isteach a chur leis an líon breithiúna atá againn san cúirteanna difriúla. Ritheadh píosa reachtaíochta sa Teach níos luaithe i mbliana, áit a raibh breis breithiúna á lorg agus d’fháiltigh muid ar fad roimhe sin agus muid ag súil go gcuideodh sé sin leis an gcur chuige sna cúirteanna. Tá beirt bhreithiúna nua sa Chúirt Uachtarach agus seisear nua san Ard-Chúirt agus tá breis breithiúna sa Chúirt Chuarda agus sa Chúirt Dúiche chomh maith. Tá súil againn go gcuideoidh sé sin chun luas a chur faoi roinnt de na cásanna atá i gceist san oifig nua seo, nó nach mbeidh an t-ardmheasúnóir seo ag déileáil leo toisc go mbeidh na cúirteanna tar éis déileáil leo iad féin.

Tuigimid ar fad, sa ré atá ann, go bhfuil i bhfad oiread níos mó moille orthu agus go bhfuil roinnt de na cásanna ag éirí níos fadálaí. Tá cásanna ann a thógfadh seachtain 20 bliain nó 30 bliain ó shin, atá ag tógáil i bhfad oiread níos mó ama anois. Níl leigheas na faidhbe sin agam ach b'fhiú dúinn díriú isteach ar conas is féidir linn déanamh cinnte de, nuair atá cás á thógáil, go bhfuil roinnt de na rudaí aontaithe roimh ré, ionas nach bhfuil an argóint leanúnach seo ann faoi gach uile phointe, nuair atá daoine os comhair na cúirte nó nuair atá na habhcóidí ag argóint mar ba chóir dóibh a dhéanamh. Tá siad ag argóint faoi go fadtéarmach nó faoi rud éigean nach bhfuil chomh suntasach sin. Uaireanta, bíonn sé suntasach dar ndóigh agus ba chóir go mbeadh abhcóide á dhéanamh má tá cosaint duine i gceist. Uaireanta bíonn an chuma air dóibh siúd atá féachaint isteach, áfach, go bhfuil fad á chur leis an bpróiseas atá ag tarlú sna cúirteanna. Caithfimid déanamh cinnte de nach bhfuil sé sin ag tarlú.

Is é ceann de na rudaí móra a bhféadfadh cur as do na cúirteanna ná an easpa gardaí atá againn. Tá gardaí gafa sna cúirteanna. Tá siad in ainm a bheith ar duty go háitiúil. Tá brú go minic orthu. Ní féidir le duine ar bith an dá thrá a fhreastal agus is cinnte nach féidir le baill den Gharda Síochána é a dhéanamh. Céard é an rud is tábhachtaí; a bheith ar duty i stáisiún atá faoi bhrú go hiomlán, nó a bheith os comhair na cúirte nuair nach bhfuil ach mionchás aici? Uaireanta bíonn garda in ann moill a chur ar dhuine nó síneadh ama a fháil, ionas go mbeadh an chúirt ag tarlú nuair atá an duine saor, nó nuair atá an deis aige nó aici gan bheith ar duty ar na sráideanna nó gafa ag déanamh iniúchta ar chás éigean nó cás eile.

Tá rud éigin nach bhfuil ann sa reachtaíocht, nuair a fhéachtar ar na míniúcháin maidir lena bhfuil go díreach inti. Is ceann deacair é. Déanann alt 11(4)(a) iarracht é a mhíniú ach sna definitions ag tús na reachtaíochta, níl míniú ann ar a bhfuil san am réasúnta nó "reasonable time". Tá a fhios agam gur rud teibí é ar shlí amháin. Is é sin an dainséar le haon rud mar seo, is é sin, cad go díreach atá san am réasúnta. Tá meon difriúil ag daoine difriúla, ag brath ar an taobh óna bhfuil siad ag caint. An bhfuil siad ag caint ar thaobh an duine atá tar éis an cás a thógáil, nó an duine atá ag déanamh cosanta ar an gcás? Is deacracht mhór é sin. Aithním go bhfuil iarracht déanta, ach ba chóir go mbeadh beagáinín níos mó ama tugtha don mhíniú atá ar fáil in alt 11. Fágaim é mar sin. Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta James Browne, as an reachtaíocht seo a thógáil os ár gcomhair. Más féidir déileáil ar Chéim an Choiste leis an mbotún atá ann maidir le teideal an ardmheasúnóra seo, bheadh sé sin go maith.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions on this Bill. Several important points have been raised and while I will touch on some of them now, I look forward to engaging with Deputies further on them. At its heart, this legislation does two things: it places on a formal statutory footing the right to trial within a reasonable time and it establishes a simple and accessible means of vindicating that right. The statutory right created reflects the constitutional position already in place in Ireland and ensures that full expression is given to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. These rights apply to both criminal and civil proceedings - to the defendant in criminal proceedings and to all parties in civil proceedings.

I referred in my opening speech, as Deputies have throughout the debate, to the European Court of Human Rights decision in McFarlane v. Ireland. It is true to say that this Bill addresses that judgment, as we are obliged to do. However, it is also a clear commitment to ensure that our justice system operates as it should, in an accessible way without unreasonable delays. The accountability that comes for the State on foot of this statutory right will help in improving the performance of the system, which is vitally important not only for the parties to a case, but also for those affected by it. Ultimately, our goal is that delays which might give rise to the remedy arise only in the most exceptional circumstances.

The uptake of assessment applications year on year is something which officials will examine closely as they continuously monitor the functioning of the legislation.Deputy Catherine Murphy correctly pointed out that this should and ultimately will be a measure "of last resort". Of course, we cannot just legislate away court delays. This Bill will be complemented by the work that is already under way to improve court procedures and reduce court delays. I have already highlighted the 54 recommendations in the report of the judicial planning working group and the Government approval in February to appoint 24 new judges in 2023. Officials are in the process of establishing an implementation programme to oversee the delivery of the recommendations. As part of this process, a suite of indicators is being developed to demonstrate the impact of appointing additional judges. These indicators must show that the additional judges are making a difference. Evidence of progress will be required before further appointments are made. Work is also well under way in implementing the review of the administration of civil justice, which includes 90 recommendations with a view to improving access to civil justice in the State, promoting early resolution of disputes, reducing the cost of litigation, creating a more responsive and proportionate system, and ensuring better outcomes for court users. We have also seen the successful introduction of preliminary trial hearings.

The actions I have mentioned highlight the holistic approach being taken by the Government to improve court procedures and reduce court delays. They are underpinned by the Courts Service modernisation programme 2020 to 2030, which will fundamentally transform how the Courts Service delivers services through greater and more effective use of IT. Deputies have asked why an assessor-based system was chosen rather than a court-based one. First, the system encompasses both possibilities, that is, the process starts through the assessor model, but this is no bar to then progressing to a Circuit Court action if either party is unsatisfied with the outcome. Second, the benefits of this are first and foremost for the applicant. The costs of litigation in the courts are much higher and may clearly present a significant obstacle, especially in cases where a relatively low award might be made that would likely be dwarfed by the legal fees involved.

I do not accept the contention that as a matter of principle the courts are the best place to deal with all cases. If a case can be resolved to all parties’ satisfaction without resort to the courts, it benefits everyone. This is of course a broader point, in that part of improving the efficiency of the courts is to not have them hearing cases they do not need to and it would be deeply illogical to worsen the situation in terms of delays by forcing all such cases to the courts. Deputy Daly raised the issue of the three-month period provided for in the Bill to make an application to the Circuit Court. I take the Deputy’s point that there may be challenges for some litigants in progressing within this timeframe. This is something we can consider further and perhaps return to on Committee Stage.

Similarly, with regard to legal aid, it is not the intention to "carry over" the legal aid that might have been granted with regard to a criminal case into the delays process. The scheme provided for in the Bill instead provides for the awarding of reasonable legal costs to successful applicants, which ensures an applicant with a bona fide claim is able to vindicate his or her right to seek an assessment. It is clear that the proposal will involve additional costs to the State. We would expect the administrative costs to be relatively modest and every effort has been made to control these, including by appointing assessors to be paid on a case-by-case basis and by providing that civil servants in the Department of Justice will provide administrative support.

In terms of compensation, assessors and the courts are required to have regard to the levels of damages awarded by the European Court of Human Rights. While there is significant variation in awards and cases which reach the European court may not necessarily be representative, Department research indicates an average award of approximately €8,000 in successful cases of this nature.

The question is then how many cases will arise. Some 27 delay cases have been taken against Ireland to the European Court of Human Rights since the McFarlane judgment in 2010. That is 27 cases over a 12-year period.

Of those cases, 14 resulted in a settlement or a finding of a violation by Ireland. The simplified scheme will make it easier and cheaper to pursue a claim, so these numbers may be expected to increase.

The specific right to the conclusion of proceedings in a reasonable period of time is for the parties to the case, that is, the defendant in criminal proceedings and to all parties in civil proceedings, and compensation is only available to these parties. However, the introduction of this right, and all of the measures we have discussed, are intended to reduce court delays.

More broadly, the Government is acutely aware of the impact of delays on victims of crime and their families. In that regard, work is continuing to give effect to the recommendations of the O'Malley review of protections for vulnerable witnesses in the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences. In addition to the introduction of preliminary trial hearings, other key actions delivered include: the nationwide roll-out of divisional protective services units; the first cohort of staff at a new sexual offences unit in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions formally took up their roles; work to advance the training for all personnel who come into contact with vulnerable victims is under way; and the University of Limerick has started a course to train and accredit intermediaries.

Regarding the judges per capitabeing low in Ireland, while clearly there is a need for more judges and we have legislated for this, it is important to note the different roles of judges in the common law and civil law systems. The judiciaries of other states, in particular civil law states, often have broader investigative and prosecutorial roles and therefore a requirement for a greater number. It is acknowledged that barristers are not paid in the District Court unless certified for a counsel by the District Court judge. In practice, solicitors agree to submit their fees with a barrister and are then responsible for paying that barrister based on that agreement.

Deputy Lawless raised the issue of barristers now increasingly and quite frequently appearing in the District Court, which may not have happened so much in the past. There is merit in his suggestion of reviewing the situation in order that barristers who perhaps share work with solicitors be paid directly for that work.

Deputy Connolly raised the issue of redactions. She will appreciate that the estimates of the legal fees that might arise at different levels, the levels of claims and so on are somewhat sensitive while the scheme is being designed and may also tend towards setting minimum standards and guidelines.

I commend the Bill to the House.