Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and commend him for bringing this Bill forward. It demonstrates great leadership and is another example of the Minister as a reformer. This is a tremendous opportunity for the people to choose "Yes" for access to justice. Like Senator O'Brien, I will certainly be campaigning for a "Yes" vote. As the Minister indicated, access to justice costs money but that has not stopped him from bringing this legislation forward. I am thrilled to see this Bill coming forward in the context of his Ministry.

I am speaking from the perspective as somebody who, as the Minister noted in his speech, has been and continues to be a user of the service. It is particularly in light of that experience that I am so thrilled that this measure is coming before the people. I want to say a little bit about that experience because it relates to the issue of delay. So much about this Bill concerns the delays involved and creating more efficiency for users, as well as presenting an opportunity to administer justice in more innovative ways than the judges and courts have been able to do.

The case that I originally took with my partner was one that we believed was of a constitutional nature - a matter of public importance. We believed that democracy is not an abstract concept, so the decision to go to court had to do with our belief in the right of citizens to engage with this structure of Irish democracy in order to seek justice for ourselves.

Article 34.1 of the Constitution states: "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution ... ". That is what the Constitution proclaims, so we wanted to ensure that our fundamental rights were protected in the same way as those of other citizens. This judicial structure is there precisely for that purpose, to provide for citizens to practice democracy in this way. That concerns a belief in a way of practising democracy and the importance of having access to justice in that regard.

In terms of my own personal experience, it was in 2002 that we decided to seek some form of legal recognition of our life partnership, which was a couple of years before we even began the legal process explicitly. I am making this point because those delays between the High Court and the Supreme Court meant a certain amount in the past, but the whole legal journey is considerably longer than that. That is why it is so important to make this system more efficient.

In 2002, we made a decision and in 2003 we got married in Canada. In mid-2004, after being denied an application to the Revenue Commissioners to note our marital status, we applied for a date to seek leave for a judicial review. In November 2004, we got that date whereby we simply sought permission to take a judicial review. In October 2006, we got a date for a court hearing for that judicial review, which took a couple of weeks; that was two years after getting leave. In December 2006, we got a High Court judgment and filed for an appeal to the Supreme Court in January 2007. We got first sight of a couple of Supreme Court judges in October 2011. Therefore, our delay was five years, even though that was in the earlier period where it is often noted that the delay was two and a half years. Now it is said to be four years, but our delay was five years.

I am noting that, from the perspective of having had that personal experience, it was in the past - and probably continues to be - quite a bit more lengthy than the average time. One requires an exceptional amount of both physical and mental health in order to take this legal journey. Even if one is supported by lawyers, it still requires a considerable amount of resources in all sorts of dimensions.

We have initiated a new case because we could not get permission before the Supreme Court to amend the proceedings in order to deal explicitly with the issue we wanted to deal with. We are on the journey again and are hoping that, in light of the Minister's leadership, the delay will not be as lengthy in future.

As regards delays, the Minister has noted that the status quo is untenable. The explanatory memorandum refers to the importance of our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 of that convention provides that legal proceedings be dealt with in a timely manner. In this instance, it is positive that the Minister and the Government are really taking serious note of those international obligations concerning the European Convention on Human Rights.

Like the Minister, I would also like to commend highly the leadership of our current Chief Justice who took that leadership stance prior to her appointment by insisting that we ultimately get to the point of establishing a court of appeal. I am hoping that the people will agree with that.

I wish to make a couple of more comments about access to justice which, as the Minister noted, is central to establishing this court of appeal. I commend the Minister for saying that he will not starve the court of appeal of resources, while being aware that access to justice costs money.

Taking a holistic approach to access to justice, another long-standing issue is the provision of civil legal aid. Our civil legal aid system is in dire need of reform. Currently, whole categories of actions are excluded from accessing civil legal aid. People who are at risk of eviction are excluded from applying for civil legal aid, as are those seeking representation before the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Equality Tribunal.

I commend the Minister for retaining the legal aid budget at a consistent level for the last couple of years. However, the cuts to the budget - implemented before the current Government came to power - ensured that it remains under-resourced. We will have access to justice in terms of establishing a court of civil appeal, but we need to ensure that people will have the resources in order to begin the process of taking cases through the courts.

There has been much coverage of the troika's concerns about legal charges in this country and the focus on competition within the legal profession. This Bill, providing for a referendum, will also help us in that regard.

In Schedule 5, Part 2 there is an identification of criteria whereby the decision is made for a case either to leapfrog to the Supreme Court or be heard by the Supreme Court once a judgment has been made by the court of appeal. The decision involves a matter of general public importance and-or being in the interests of justice.

Will there be a delineation between how the decision is made and the application of the criteria to determine which cases can be heard by the Supreme Court, either through the leap-frogging process or subsequent to a decision of the court of appeal?