Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Fáilte ar ais, a Aire. This is the first piece of legislation that has come before this Seanad from the Department of Justice and Equality. It is a very welcome legislation. As the Minister said in her Second Stage speech, there are some really progressive aspects to this Bill that will help the Courts Service and the justice system to function in a much easier and more efficient way.

It is important to recognise the importance and urgency of some of the provisions of the Bill outlined by the Minister. I note the Minister intends to introduce more legislation in this vein in the coming months. I look forward to further opportunities to debate it. As with every piece of legislation that has come before the 26th Seanad, this will pass all Stages in a short period of time. Everybody recognises that this is generally an undesirable state of affairs, but it is permissible in the circumstances that make the measures in all of that legislation urgent.The impact of the Covid crisis has brought home to people how systems are sometimes not designed to respond to a pandemic or an emergency. The Courts Service and the justice system are no exception in this regard. It is important to recognise that we have a very good, functional justice system. We score well on just about every international matrix. The system has its flaws, without doubt. There are issues regarding access to civil justice, such as civil legal aid for some individuals, and there are issues with delays in the process and these have been exacerbated by the Covid crisis. As a general rule, however, we have a functional justice system. Judges are fair and amenable to the rule of law, the courts are amenable to review and appeal and, in general, the persons who come before the courts are well represented and get a fair and just hearing from the judges they come before. Sometimes we are slow to recognise what we do well and quick to criticise - and that appropriate - but we should take a moment to recognise that the system here works very well in administering justice for people, citizens and non-citizens alike. This is an important aspect of what the legislation does, namely, facilitating that system. However, as the Minister indicated, there are aspects that need to be improved.

One issue that the Covid crisis has brought home is how antiquated the system is in some respects. This Bill goes to the heart of some of those matters. I refer to the notion of electronic filing of documents. Until recently, there was a requirement for a physical document to be signed by a particular person - and that a particular oath had to be sworn - and brought physically to an office in the Four Courts. That is now a thing of the past. It is appropriate that this legislation should deal with those issues and allow the legal services, both the courts and practitioners, to enter the 21st century. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the developed world where the same strictures as those which currently obtain in Ireland apply. It is welcome that the matter is being addressed in the legislation and that it will be easier for people to do the things to which I refer online in an efficient way that benefits everybody.

I will go through the measures in the Bill. On the reform of the legislation relating to coroners, the coroner system in is probably quite antiquated. This country relies on legislation primarily dating from the 1960s. It has been updated a little but is still very rigid. There is definitely room for provisions that can improve it and there is probably room for a consolidated coroners Bill in the future. What the Bill before the House does in the area makes a great deal of sense and is a recognition of the fact that, from time to time, an emergency situation will arise and that the system, as currently designed, is not equipped to deal with it. The measures which allow a Minister to appoint persons to fulfil the duties of those coroners, still fulfilling all the criteria that would be required to appoint that person in the first place, are welcome. Good safeguards are included in those sections which provide for the manner in which the Minister can do that. They provide safeguards in that context which are very important and which mean that we will not allow a given Minister to simply bypass important systems that are there already. This is done well, the provision is measured and it is an important fallback measure for a Minister if and, perhaps, when something similar to Covid happens in future. It is right and proper that this should be there.

Also front and centre in the Bill are the provisions relating to remote hearings. These will allow witnesses to give evidence remotely and judges to be absent from the relevant districts when hearings are taking place. Credit is due to the Judiciary in that it has dealt with many of the challenges brought about by the Covid crisis. The Court of Appeal, as its president has pointed out, is particularly well-equipped to deal with those matters online. There is very rarelyviva voce evidence in the Court of Appeal, so there is an opportunity for lawyers to appear online and judges be present remotely. The Court of Appeal has embraced that very successfully. I am not sure when it last sat corporeally. Having three judges creates a particular difficulty in the context of an infectious pandemic. The court has addressed that well by having remote hearings. We hope to return to a situation in September whereby the criminal courts will have sittings with live witnesses and juries present.There are particular challenges that face the Courts Service in terms of the administration of those processes, including jury pools, witnesses and so on. Many of these provisions will assist the Courts Service in dealing with those issues and will remove the doubt that might otherwise have existed as to the legitimacy or otherwise of conducting hearings in particular ways. That is very welcome.

In terms of addressing the modernisation of our justice system, it is entirely appropriate that we move towards saying that it is acceptable to use technology to streamline the process and make it more efficient. Equally, by extension, it is appropriate to facilitate people who are involved in that process, in some cases by not requiring their attendance. I am aware of a trial scheduled in September where one of the witnesses is over 70 and has been advised to self-isolate. It would be impossible for him to come to court in those circumstances but it will be possible for him to give video link evidence. That is progressive, appropriate and welcome.

Another important modernisation concerns the statements of truth. The somewhat antiquated method of swearing affidavits and the requirement for a religious or other affirmation depending on the person's belief code date from a different time. As long as the person swearing that affidavit understands that he or she is making a serious declaration of truth that is not to be trifled with or taken other than very seriously, the new system achieves exactly the same thing as the old system. I therefore welcome the provisions in respect of statements of truth.

The measures in respect of facilitating appeals are also welcome. A particular hole is plugged by section 27 of the Bill, which deals with committal warrants. There has been a lag in that antiquated system for a long time. That can now be undone and put on a statutory footing to give clarity to everybody involved. It will also reduce the risk of further actions unnecessarily arising where somebody is in custody already. This is a progressive and simple measure in section 27 that will save hassle for individuals and will save the State money in terms of proceedings that might take place as a result of errors.

All the measures contained here are reasonable, progressive and good and they all achieve a particular and identifiable good. The business records point required clarification which has been achieved in the Bill. I welcome that. The Minister makes an important point in her Second Stage speech about the fact that business records are an exception to the hearsay rule. It is dangerous to chip away at evidential rules that are there to protect everybody but it is important to recognise that this does not mean business records are automatically admissible and cannot be challenged. The Bill retains the right of a person in court to challenge a business record if it is the appropriate thing to do. The usual provisions still apply. Sometimes it is dangerous that we think of these provisions that are protections for all of us as loopholes. Every loophole is in fact a protection for the person whom we perceive as guilty but who may be innocent but accused. That is a very important provision and a safeguard that we thankfully have in our legislation.

I welcome the Bill. It is progressive. I particularly welcome that in the next few months we will have an opportunity to do more in this area because there is a great deal of work we can do to streamline and improve the process.