Previous Page  313 / 462 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 313 / 462 Next Page
Page Background

GAZETTE

PR E S I D E N T 'S

M E S S A G E

OCTOBER 1993

The Government Must Act

on the Courts Service

l At the joint Law Society/Bar Council press conference to publicise details of the submission

were l-R: Frank Clarke, SC, Chairman of the Bar Council and Raymond Monahan, President

of the Law Society.

At every available opportunity

throughout my year as President I

have highlighted my own concern and

the concern of members of the

profession throughout the country

about the current state of our courts

service. The culmination of our efforts

in this regard was a very detailed

submission which the Society,

supported by the Bar Council,

forwarded to the Minister for Justice

on 21 September last, setting out our

views about the future management of

the courts service and what needs to

be done to ensure that Ireland has a

modern, efficient service which

ensures that people have proper access

to justice and can vindicate their

rights and pursue their just

entitlements. A day later, the Law

Society and the Bar Council held a

joint press conference to publicise the

contents of the submission.

I was particularly pleased at the joint

approach by ourselves and the Bar

Council. As practising lawyers we

often have the unhappy task of trying

to explain the shortcomings of the

current system to clients who are

justifiably bewildered by the delay

and antiquated procedures they

encounter, and indeed, who are not

above laying the blame for these

matters at the door of their solicitor or

counsel. It was a valuable opportunity

to express concern for our clients'

interests and also our own desire to

see a better service in place. I hope it

will be the first of many joint

initiatives by the two practising

professions on issues of mutual

concern, whereby by co-operating we

can add weight to our efforts

At our press conference I said that

acute underfunding of the service for

many years and poor management of

the courts at central level in

Government had led to a situation

which had now reached crisis point.

There is little doubt that the

I inefficiency of the service is

contributing greatly to the high cost of

litigation in this country and is,

therefore, imposing a substantial

burden on the commercial life of the

country. The present state of affairs is

completely unsatisfactory and requires

urgent action.

Citizens are entitled to look to the

courts for the vindication of their

rights and they must have access to a

system of justice that is efficient,

speedy and cost-effective. Delay in

hearing a civil case is now of the

order of two and a half to three years

in the High Court and in the principal

Circuit Court areas. This is proof that

the courts system is not serving the

needs of the public.

Our joint submission described the

principal shortcomings of the existing

service, examined delays in the courts

and documented the appalling

conditions and lack of facilities in

many courthouses around the country

especially facilities for the hearing of

family law cases. It urged examination

of the setting up of a special family

law court, the need for reform of the

| pleadings system and pre-trial

procedures and a more efficient listing

I system, the need for more resources

for the courts, including an end to

embargos on the filling of staff

vacancies, the appointment of extra

judges, spending on information

technology, and recommended a new

management structure - an executive

agency - first suggested in the Devlin

Report almost 25 years ago.

i The submission now rests with the

Minister of Justice and we await her

response with interest. So far the only

indication of a response from

Government was a media report which

indicated that the Minister of State at

the Department of Justice,

William

O'Dea TD,

had "dismissed" the idea

of an executive agency because he felt

it would interfere with the

independence of the judiciary and

could also be unconstitutional. This is

a disappointing response, and we

hope that the Minister of State will

examine the idea in greater depth. In

'

(Continued on page 293)

THE LAW

SOCIETY

291