David Norris (Independent)

I support the amendment for the reasons outlined. People are entitled to a speedy judgment and the reasons for it. There appears to be no provision for this in the Bill. There are delays. A document I have received from the Law Society states:

It is not the experience of many practising lawyers and their clients that reasoned judgments are commonly given in all courts. This issue has arisen in a number of recent Supreme Court cases, for example, T v. T, judgment of Denham, J., and K v. K, judgment of McGuinness, J.

We have on record situations where the complex of events the amendment seeks to resolve has arisen and judgments have been given. In view of this, the amendment is a good idea.

The Law Society document goes on to state this may increase the number of reasoned decisions. Is this a cause for alarm or regret? I would not have thought so. The more reasoned decisions we get from the courts, the better.

Without this amendment there is no effective remedy for citizens in a situation where there is this kind of dereliction. The Minister indicated his concern that this may lead to perhaps even vexatious actions against judges. We know that judges like to stay on one side of the bar and not get into the box reserved for the accused, which is a natural human tendency. I have tabled an amendment which would address this problem. The Minister of State can, therefore, accept this amendment without having any worries about the possibility of judges being impugned for corruption, because this would be looked after by a subsequent amendment.

Tribunals, which are a form of court, are not excluded from the definition of "organs of the State", set out in page 4 of the Bill. If they are not excluded, why should a parallel situation, where courts are involved, be excluded? There are a number of reasons, including those effectively advanced by the Law Society, for accepting this amendment.

Requiring judges to have regard to the principles of the convention would also be very effective and a useful effect of the amendment. Given the arguments advanced by this side of the House, there is strong case for the Minister of State to accept it.