The Gazette 1978

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1978

and far-reaching responsibilities for the administration of

the Courts, for the listing of cases and in general for the

despatch of the business of their Courts. That involves,

amongst other things of course, a responsibility for the

control of the staff attached to the Courts in relation to

the despatch of Court business. No member of the

judiciary however has any formal right to request or

demand from the Legislature or the Executive any funds

or any staff for the purpose of carrying out those duties.

Personal relations and personal communications in my

experience between members of the Judiciary and the

appropriate Ministers of State and members of the

Government in successive Governments have always

been courteous and full. That, however, is unfortunately

clearly not sufficient. Some more formal structure is

required. It is, in a sense, meaningless to vest in a

particular member or members of the Judiciary the right

to direct or control the staff of the Courts to carry out a

specific function if there is no further right in the same

member or members of the Judiciary to control the

recruitment, training and extent of that staff. It is equally

meaningless to vest in a member or members of the

Judiciary the right to allot business to colleagues, to

allocate the cases and number of cases which should be

tried by them in any particular area or over any particular

time unless you also give to the same member or members

some right to secure the provision of the accommodation

in which that business can be transacted.

In general in society at present in Ireland people are

taking a fresh look at many of our institutions and many

of our structures. Much of that is imaginative, much of it

is progressive and some of it appears to be achieved or in

the process of achievement. It seems to me that a time has

certainly arrived and probably been passed when the

Legislature and the Executive could well look with a fresh

mind and an imaginative approach at the structure of the

Courts and could, by a relatively simple alteration in the

statutory provisions effecting them, greatly enhance their

efficiency and capacity and thus fully discharge the duties

which the Legislature and Executive have to respect in a

real way the independence of the Judiciary.

Mr. Eamonn Barnes, Director of Public Prosecutions,

duly seconded this Resolution. He said he fully supported

Mr. Justice Finlay's remarks regarding the administration

of the Courts. There had been very serious arrears in

Criminal cases and as a result of the Criminal Procedure

Act, 1967, the backlog of Dublin Circuit Criminal Cases

took as long as 3 to 4 years before the cases were heard,

but as a result of recent steps there had been great

improvements. He was firmly of the opinion that justice

delayed was justice denied.

As regards patronage he was inclined to agree with

Samuel Johnson's definition of patronage to the effect

that this was "a distribution of jobs in accordance with a

system where merit does not necessarily play a major

part". This definitely did not apply to the recent Irish

Judiciary because, having perused the list of Irish Judges

since 1934, he was of opinion that more than 30 of them

would have graced the Bench. Amongst the names he

mentioned were those of Kennedy, Hanna, Lavery,

Gavan Duffy, Kingsmill Moore, Sullivan and O'Dalaigh

— men who would have become Judges under any

system. He pointed out that many barristers made

financial sacrifices by becoming Judges and this reduced

their incomes considerably. He agreed with Mr. Justice

Finlay that on the whole politics was a necessary and

honourable profession and that the major political

decisions were properly vested in the Government. As

regards the distribution of State work which was his most

unpleasant function his main concern was to support the

public interest. It followed that the number of prosecuting

barristers must, of necessity, be limited. This Resolution

was duly passed.

Mr. Donal Barrington, S.C., Chairman of the Bar

Council, proposed the Resolution "That the Solicitors'

Apprentices' Debating Society of Ireland is worthy of the

support of Solicitors' Apprentices, of the Council of the

Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and of the

Solicitors' profession."

He said that there had been a bad tradition that

the Government should only consult the people it could

allegedly trust. But, Mr. Declan Costello, as Attorney-

General, had introduced a major change which greatly

enhanced the barristers' profession. In a word, barristers

were henceforth selected for State work according to their

merit regardless of their political affiliations. The

difficulty was to get a minimum of experience in order to

conduct yourself satisfactorily in your first cases. Mr

Barrington agreed with Mr. Justice Finlay that it was

desirable that lawyers should take in interest in politics

but this should not be exclusively so. While the

appointment should rest with the Government,

nevertheless as the proposed Judges would have been

barristers in practice, it would be worthwhile that their

colleagues views should be taken into account in relation

to such matters as knowledge of the law, suitability, and

courtesy. There is little doubt that many litigants will

accept the fact that they have lost their case if they think

they have had a good hearing. The Resolution was duly

passed.

Mrs. Quinlan then thanked the Auditor and speakers

for their contributions. The Meeting then terminated.

Valuation for compensation

is our business

Osborne King &Megran

Dublin 700251

Cork 21371

Galway 66261