The Gazette 1993

352 / 462

GAZETTE M I W H NOVEMBER 1993
Viewpoint (Contd.)
is to administer justice in the
individual cases that come before
them. While the judiciary, of course,
have to involve themselves in
administering the lists and ensuring
that judges are available to deal with
the work as it arises, it is the
responsibility of the Minister to
ensure that, in overall terms, the
courts are working efficiently and that
the public are getting a proper service
and that the service represents good
value for the taxpayers' money. That
is not a judicial function and those
carrying it out would not, in our view,
be encroaching in any way on the
proper role and responsibilities of the
judges. What the Law Society and the
Bar Council are seeking is that, first
of all, the courts are established as a
proper service; second, that there is
somebody in overall charge with
responsibility for promoting
efficiency, examining the cost-
effectiveness of different expenditure
programmes, suggesting ways of
delivering the service better and
ensuring value for money.
The establishment of the courts as an
Executive Agency need not
necessarily take it outside the
mainstream of the Civil Service. The
Executive Agency concept is simply a
mechanism for freeing up day-to-day
decision-making from central
bureaucratic control - in other words,
delegating authority to a senior
official at court level. It is axiomatic
that that person would have to work
closely with the judges; that he would
have to consult widely before taking
action to address difficulties and that
he would have to be a person who
would be sensitive to the respective
roles of administrators and judges and
stay scrupulously within his own
domain.
The case has been made and requires
urgent consideration. There is an onus
on those who have a different point of
view to set out clearly why they see it
differently. •
See summary of the joint Law Society/
Bar Council Submission on page 337.
Compens a t i on Fund - Payments
The following claim amounts were
admitted by the Compensation Fund
Committee and approved for payment
by the Council of the Law Society at
its meetings in September and
October, 1993. The name of the
solicitor in respect of whose
defalcation the claim arose is listed in
the left hand column.
September
Christopher Forde,
52 O'Connell Street,
Ennis,
Co. Clare.
John J O'Reilly,
1 Farnham Street,
Cavan,
Co. Cavan.
John Kieran Brennan,
Mayfield,
Enniscorthy,
Co. Wexford.
James C. Glynn,
Dublin Road,
Tuam,
Co. Galway.
Michael Dunne,
63/65 Main Street,
Blackrock,
Co. Dublin.
Conor Killeen &
Elio Malocco,
Chatham House,
Chatham Street,
Dublin 2.
Anthony J O'Malley,
James Street,
Westport,
Co. Mayo.
Jonathan PT Brooks,
17/18 Nassau Street,
Dublin 2.
IR£
5,963.64
580.00
5,619.75
14,766.70
2,990.75
9,736.57
4,987.80
267,575.30
312,220.51
October
John J O'Reilly,
1 Farnham Street,
Cavan,
Co. Cavan.
Conor Kileen &
Elio Malocco,
Chatham House,
Chatham Street,
Dublin 2.
Christopher Forde,
52 O'Connell Street,
Ennis,
Co. Clare.
James C Glynn,
Dublin Road,
Tuam,
Co. Galway.
Michael Dunne,
63/65 Main Street,
Blackrock,
Co. Dublin.
John Kieran Brennan,
Mayfield,
Enniscorthy,
Co. Wexford.
Diarmuid Corrigan,
6 St. Agnes Road,
Crumlin,
Dublin 12.
IR£
50.00
26,956.00
38,112.33
130,462.26
41,500.00
900.00
2,187.92
240,168.51
•
Established scientists,
experienced in all areas of
forensic document examination
Quick response
Competitive rates
Contact: Mike HaU
DOCUMENT EVIDENCE
Gatsby Court
172 Holliday St.
Birmingham
B1 11]
Fax:0044 21 633 0288
330