David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 39, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“Completion of judicial proceedings after retirement

60. The Courts and Court Offices Act 1995 is amended by the insertion after section 47A of the following section:

“47B. (1)Notwithstanding that a person has retired from or otherwise vacated an office to which this section applies—

(a) he or she, with the consent of the President for the time being of the relevant court, may within a period of four months thereafter discharge the function of giving judgment and making an order on foot thereof and making any consequential or ancillary order in any case or matter which was begun and heard before him or her prior to he or she vacating or retiring from that office, and

(b) for that purpose, and for the purpose of any proceeding arising out of such case or matter, he or she shall be treated as having been a holder of that office at the time of discharging the function mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) Provided that nothing in this section applies in cases where such person was removed from office or imposes or increases any charge on the Central Fund or the public revenue.

(3) In this section ‘consequential or ancillary orders’ includes any certification or settling a case stated for the purpose of an appeal and the granting of any stay in respect of the order and any order dealing with the costs of any proceeding to which subsection (1) relates.

(4) Nothing in this section precludes the President of any court from directing that any “consequential or ancillary order” in any proceeding to which subsection (1) has application may be made by another member of the court in cases where it would be just to do so.

(5) Where the proceedings to which subsection (1) relates were proceedings before a division of a court consisting of three or more members, nothing in this section precludes the remaining members of that division of the court from delivering a reserved judgement or making an ancillary or consequential order, where the President for the time being of the court has consented and where the remaining members of the relevant division of the court are of opinion that no injustice would result.

(6) In this section the term ‘President’ includes the Chief Justice in relation to cases heard in the Supreme Court.”.”.

This was to come after section 59, which has now been removed, so presumably it now comes directly after section 58, and therefore the number I have for the moment is not appropriate. This amendment is to amend the Courts and Court Offices Act 1995 by the insertion after section 47A of the following section:“47B. (1)Notwithstanding that a person has retired from or otherwise vacated an office to which this section applies—I presume this means a question of illness. Supposing the judge has a heart attack or a stroke and is not able to fulfil the functions, in those places the amendment provides that:

(a) he or she, with the consent of the President for the time being of the relevant court, may within a period of four months thereafter discharge the function of giving judgment and making an order on foot thereof and making any consequential or ancillary order in any case or matter which was begun and heard before him or her prior to he or she vacating or retiring from that office, and

(b) for that purpose, and for the purpose of any proceeding arising out of such case or matter, he or she shall be treated as having been a holder of that office at the time of discharging the function mentioned in paragraph (a).

(2) Provided that nothing in this section applies in cases where such person was removed from office or imposes or increases any charge on the Central Fund or the public revenue.

I take it that this reference to the Central Exchequer and to funds and so on is to ensure that the Bill is protected against the qualification that Seanad Éireann is prohibited as it currently stands - although we have some business on that to try to remove standing order section 41 - and it could be ruled out of order because it creates a charge on the Exchequer. The amendment also provides that:

(3) In this section ‘consequential or ancillary orders’ includes any certification or settling a case stated for the purpose of an appeal and the granting of any stay in respect of the order and any order dealing with the costs of any proceeding to which subsection (1) relates.

(4) Nothing in this section precludes the President of any court from directing that any “consequential or ancillary order” in any proceeding to which subsection (1) has application may be made by another member of the court in cases where it would be just to do so.

(5) Where the proceedings to which subsection (1) relates were proceedings before a division of a court consisting of three or more members, nothing in this section precludes the remaining members of that division of the court from delivering a reserved judgement or making an ancillary or consequential order, where the President for the time being of the court has consented and where the remaining members of the relevant division of the court are of opinion that no injustice would result.

(6) In this section the term ‘President’ includes the Chief Justice in relation to cases heard in the Supreme Court.”.”.

Once again we are following the precedent of our neighbouring island. In so doing we are introducing a very practical element into the Bill. I emphasise that this is not just something from Senator McDowell - I nearly said President McDowell - but that it is from the President of the Court of Appeal who had actually asked that this provision be introduced into the legislation. This is a voice to which we must listen. In addition, we hear a lot these days about delays in the courts system. This would have the effect of speeding up the courts system and ameliorating these delays.

The situation at the moment is that a judge stops being a judge completely and fully. He or she is extinct from being a judge from the very day of retirement. This means that judges are pretty well frozen for the last three months of their operation. This is to make sure that judges are not sitting on cases that might not come to a conclusion-----