Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party)

I welcome the Minister and the opportunity to debate the Courts and Court Officers Bill 2009. Like Senator Walsh, I must admit to feeling at a slight disadvantage. I am not a legal practitioner and thus am not on the receiving end of some of Senator Walsh's criticisms, but I have been a litigant once or twice and a defendant in one or two minor cases and I was struck by the volume of people going through the courts. This obviously puts pressure on the court offices and the Courts Service.

Because I am not familiar with this area, I looked at the annual report of the Courts Service where I found that the functions of the service are wide ranging and important. It manages the courts, supports the Judiciary, provides services to court users, provides and maintains court buildings and provides information on the courts to the public. It is important that the service is working effectively and efficiently. However, as others have mentioned, we are facing difficult times with regard to our public finances, and the Courts Service will need to conduct its services with less money. We must try to ensure that whatever changes take place do not have a negative impact on the front-line services, particularly customer and courtroom services.

I welcome the Bill. While it is largely technical in nature, it will introduce much more efficient operational procedures into the Courts Service which will be put into effect at the new Criminal Courts of Justice when it is opened, although the date for that is still up in the air. It will streamline procedures for custody arrangements, prevent the duplication of duties by the Garda Síochána and free gardaí for operational duties.

The Bill alters some of the structures that were put in place by earlier courts legislation so that the service can prepare for the move to the Criminal Courts of Justice complex near the Phoenix Park. This will be quite an impressive facility with 450 rooms, 22 courtrooms and ancillary facilities, and vastly improved facilities generally for both staff and the Judiciary. It will enable the courts staff to operate in a single administrative office in support of all the courts, of which there are 22, including the Central Criminal Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Special Criminal Court, the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court and the Dublin District Court. These will all be located in the new facility. This will allow for improved flexibility in staff arrangements, which will be important in years to come.

The Bill hopes to achieve administrative efficiencies by consolidating the court offices on a thematic, that is, criminal, basis. The District Court deals with approximately 450,000 cases per year while the Supreme Court deals with fewer than 500. Section 15 will allow the criminal aspects of the High Court office to be relocated to the Phoenix Park office while retaining a civilian jurisdiction in the existing office in the Four Courts. The Bill also requires that the head of each office, the senior sitting judge, be consulted before any such consolidated office can be established. Section 17 also allows for the administrative business of the Special Criminal Court to be dealt with by a nominated court office.

The remainder of Part 3 combines the court offices into the existing legislative structures. Essentially, the sections clarify that all previous references to a court office should be read in future as including a reference to the new combined office. Section 23 provides that there be no disruption to court business or filing of documents where court offices are being reconfigured and jurisdiction is being transferred. This is important to avoid the kind of upheaval that can sometimes occur when there is a reconfiguration of services.

Some of the other technical changes made by the Bill, as others have mentioned, are in the area of bail recognisance. I was obliged to educate myself about bail recognisance which is an obligation or bond made before a court for a person to perform some act, for example, to appear before a court or ensure the attendance of an accused person at a trial. Take AA

The various courts have slightly different rules as to who can enter a recognisance. A bond or recognisance does not always have to be entered by an individual. Where it is required from a person, the judge may accept an instrument executed by a solvent person, corporation or insurance company. In the context of bail, recognisance will be estreated, that is, forfeited on foot of a special procedure in circumstances where the person fails to appear and a warrant for arrest is issued or the person is brought before the court and the court is satisfied that he or she has contravened the terms of the recognisance.

Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, recognisances may be taken by a District Court judge, a District Court clerk, a peace commissioner, the governor of a prison or a prison officer designated by a prison governor. The Act provided the District Court with the options of either requiring the accused to enter a judicially determined recognisance into court or of refusing bail and remanding him or her into custody. Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 allowed the District Court judge a third option of a non-monetary recognisance, in recognition of the circumstances faced by many people in this situation. However, the wording of the Act gave rise to the potential interpretation that only a District Court judge could take a non-monetary recognisance. An amendment in this Bill allows for District Court clerks to receive this form of recognisance where the court has admitted a person to bail as part of being remanded or sent for trial or sentence. Effectively, it allows for the administrative act of taking a non-monetary recognisance to be undertaken by a District Court clerk rather than a judge.

The Bill also provides for changes in the area of temporary custody. There has been a gradual shift from employing gardaí for escort duties and transfers of prisoners for court appearances are now largely carried out by the Prison Service escort corps, which is based in Cloverhill Prison in west Dublin and has a staff of 156 and a fleet of 52 vehicles. However, occasions arise when gardaí have to resume escort duties. Part 2 of the Bill aims both to resolve these jurisdictional issues and reduce the resource burden of escorting prisoners to and from prisons in advance of the completion of the Central Criminal Court complex by allowing custody facilities to be managed by the Prison Service. While the default position is that prisoners will remain under the jurisdiction and physical control of the Prison Service officers on their way to and from court appearances, section 6 of the Bill provides that a prisoner may lawfully be placed temporarily under the control of a garda or a prison governor in a court house or place adjacent to a court house.

Section 11 of the Bill provides that the holding area officer may use such force as is necessary to carry out his or her duties in respect of temporary custody. Section 11(2) provides that the series of rules dealing with all aspects of prison regulation will only apply so in so far as they deal with the regulation of searches conducted in the temporary holding facility. Section 12 also provides that the Minister may make regulations on the standard and procedures relating to the orderly management of any place in which a person is held. I share Senator Bacik's concerns about this section and ask for clarification on it. If it is intended to introduce safeguards for prisoners who have not yet been prosecuted of found guilty or who may be appearing as a witness, it is important that we provide proper safeguards for their treatment while in temporary custody. Otherwise, I welcome this technical but important Bill, which will achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings in the Courts Service.