Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am of the view that 4 October 2013 was a very good day for good governance in Ireland. On that date, we protected the ability of the Legislature to do its work and having two Houses is a very important part of that. The case in that regard was eloquently made by my colleagues. The people wisely followed our lead in respect of the matter.
It must be remembered that 4 October 2013 was also a good day for the judicial branch of the Executive. A marked feature of the common law systems in England, Canada and Australia is the fact that each has an intermediate court. Senator Walsh gets it right in respect of many matters but he does not sufficiently appreciate the merits of our common law system. One need only recall the great judicial reasoning that has occurred here over the years, the operation of principles of equity in our courts, the existence of concepts such as habeas corpus, etc. The Senator may have made some valid points with regard to the cost involved for ordinary citizens in the context of the way the legal system here is currently structured. However, our common law system has a great deal to recommend it.
It is to be hoped that the change proposed in the Bill will lead to the bulk of cases ending in the new Court of Appeal. As is only right, there will be scope for bypassing the court in some instances. For example, High Court cases relating to constitutional matters will be able to be referred directly to the Supreme Court. In addition, cases will sometimes go, on appeal, from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. As the Minister is aware, the American and English supreme courts each deal with approximately 100 cases per year. At present, approximately four or five times that number come before the Irish Supreme Court. What we are seeking is a future where there will pretty much be an absolute right to appeal virtually every High Court case to the new Court of Appeal. As previous speakers indicated, it will become a constitutional court. There will be an element of front-loading because the Supreme Court is currently assessing the cases on hand in order to determine which appeals should be hard by it and which should be deal with by the court of appeal. I understand the US Supreme Court receives approximately 10,000 cases each year through which it is obliged to sift before choosing the 100 or thereabouts it will hear.
We hope that proper funding will be provided. Perhaps the Minister will outline the likely cost of establishing, operating and maintaining the new court. Will funding be provided in time for the court of appeal to be up and running by October? The Minister referred to the motion for earlier signature, which will enable the appointment of new judges in a timely fashion. I understand there have been discussions regarding appointing nine or ten judges who would sit in panels of three. From what the Minister indicated, I can infer that the procedure in this regard has not yet commenced. Establishing the court is going to cost money. Every court needs a registrar and an officer and there are many different headings under which new costs will be incurred. It is worth noting that as a result of legal initiatives taken in a respect of personal insolvency and the appointment of special insolvency judges, some judges have been left with no work to do. That will certain not be the case in the context of the new court of appeal.
As the Minister indicated, section 8 provides that in so far as criminal cases are concerned there will be just one judgment. That is both desirable and necessary and it follows current practice in the court of criminal appeal where only one judgement is delivered. This is necessary in order that we might have coherence, continuity and certainty in respect of criminal matters in particular. That to which I refer dates back to the foundation of our system in the 1920s and echoes the English rule of 1908. I am glad the Bill provides that in criminal matters, just one judgment will be handed down and the fact of whether dissent occurred will not be disclosed. This is extremely important in the context of consistency and certainty in the criminal law.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, which I support.