384 / 432
GAZETTE
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER
1994
advertising in an unacceptable manner.
However, the article does point out that
"in the absence of a civil legal aid
scheme (save for the most urgent
family law matters) it has allowed
people without funds to receive justice
they could never have received without
lawyers who were prepared to bear the
risk. Reference was made to the
Kenneth Best
case which would not
have got to court "without the
willingness of Cork Solicitor,
Ernest
Cantillon,
to bear the costs, and of the
barristers who appeared for him being
prepared to risk not being paid."
In an article in the
Sunday Press
on 6
November 1994 headed "Huge
insurance hikes threaten future of
community centres" high legal fees
were blamed. However, the article did
feature a statement from the Law
Society which said "Their claim has
been rejected by the Incorporated Law
Society, which says that fees charged
by solicitors are fair. It also supports
the level of awards given out by judges
in compensation cases.
An article in the
Evening Press
on 7
November 1994, called for new
penalties against solicitors who
encouraged people to make 'frivolous'
compensation claims. The article stated
that "the insurance industry is
concerned that more aggressive
advertising by solicitors will lead to an
increase in the number of these cases
coming before the courts."
The
Irish Independent
on 14 November
1994 featured an article with the
headline: "FG doubtful over award cap
plan". The article stated that Fine Gael
would not support Government plans to
cap compensation awards - unless they
are accompanied by a firm contractual
undertaking by the insurance industry
that it will result in insurance costs
being cut. The article reported that Fine
Gael published a discussion document
that day (14.11.94). Fine Gael argued
that a series of measures, including
reducing senior counsel on cases has
had no effect on the rising insurance
costs. Fine Gael made other
recommendations as a means of
reducing the cost of insurance.
Gay Mitchell stated on the 1.00 p.m.
news of 98FM (14.11.94) that "we
shouldn't go along with capping
per se
unless we get a firm and binding
agreement from the insurance industry
that insurance costs will come down."
In a letter to the editor of the
Irish Times
on 17 November 1994,
Sylvester Cronin,
Safety Officer of SIPTU stated: "SIPTU
is vigorously working at resisting this
capping, as it flies in the face of
encouraging employers to reduce
occupational accidents as the prime
means of reducing insurance premiums."
In the
Irish Times
on 4 November 1994
Fintan O 'Toole
wrote a piece attacking
the proposed 'capping' of
compensation awards. The headline
read: "Plan to cap awards a ruthless
attack on our rights". He says "the idea
of putting a price on bits of your body,
on the ability to see, or to walk or to
think straight, is deeply offensive." The
article is an excellent account of
arguments against capping. He says "it
is, it seems to me an extremely
important proposal, not just because of
its immediate concerns with the cost of
insurance, but because of what it says
about the way we as a society propose
to value the worth of individual lives."
He gives examples of Irish cases where
the amounts of damages are not
excessive and in fact could be argued
were not enough. He also refers to the
report of the British Law Reform
Commission which has found that
awards in Britain are too low. These
findings were published the same week
that
Ruairi Quinn
was arguing that Irish
personal injury awards should be
brought down to British levels.
Fintan
O'Toole
stated that
Ruairi Quinn's
proposed Bill is a classic case of
blaming the victim. He is of the opinion
that "capping damages does nothing to
root out the chancers of the compo
culture, most of whom rely, not on the
liberality of the courts, but on the
willingness of the insurance companies
to settle small claims without proper
investigation."
Ruairi Quinn answered
Fintan
O'Toole's
column in a letter to the
editor on Friday 18 November 1994.
He stated "Mr. O'Toole is right to point
out that this is not just an economic
issue; that there is a moral dimension.
Ultimately, society will have to judge,
in the light of the economic
consequences and having regard to the
moral aspect, whether it wishes the
current level of awards - and premiums
- to continue, or whether, in return for
lower premiums, it will accept the
capping of compensation awards."
The Courts and Court Officers Bill
1994.
Thie
Sunday Press
published an article
on 6 November 1994 concerning the
Courts and Court Officers Bill 1994.
The article bore the headline "Why the
new Courts Bill won't be rocking the
1 boat". The article stated "this week's
Dail debate saw the new Courts Bill
coming under sustained opposition
attack for failing to go far as even the
mildest of reformers were urging.
Perhaps it's symptomatic of the Bill's
rushed nature that real reform is
I avoided by simply replicating existing
practice in Britain". The article
mentioned the proposals to allow
solicitors to be appointed to the Circuit
Court as well as, at present to the
District Court. The article stated: "For,
if solicitors are good enough to serve as
Circuit Court judges then what's wrong
with the High Court or even the
I Supreme Court? Here, the reform again
lags behind even England where
solicitors are at least eligible for the
High Court - though only one has been
appointed so far."
An article was published in the
Sunday
Press,
13 November 1994 with the
headline "Courts Bill feared to be
unconstitutional". The article states
1
"The Courts and Court Officers Bill,
which was hurriedly drafted to solve
the row between
Albert Reynolds
and
Dick Spring
over the appointment of
Harry Whelehan
is currently before the
Dail. However, there are doubts about
the constitutionality of the Bill on a
number of fronts". The article states
that the new method of appointing
judges through a Judicial Appointments
Commission may be contrary to Article
35 of the Constitution which says that
all judges shall be appointed by the
President. The article said "legal
sources also say that the section of the
i Bill which deals with the establishment
of a new Court of Appeal is also
unconstitutional."
Catherine Dolan
•
360