The Gazette 1964/67

of awards and a uniformity of decisions. The element of predictability in awards is thus established whereas there is neither uni formity nor predictability in awards by juries. Another objection to trial by jury in civil cases is that it is well nigh impossible to upset a verdict of a -jury on appeal unless it is perverse. In any event in such a case the appellant court only normally orders a new trial. In civil cases trial by jury is a time consuming process and it results in an expensive undertaking for a middle-class plaintiff as the average case lasts three days' instead of one. In his view therefore juries in civil trials should be abolished. The next speaker was an eminent psychiatrist Dr. McLoughlin. The speaker was broadly in favour of the retention of juries in civil cases save in the case of inquisitions by juries as to whether a particular person was insane or not. The speaker gave instances of various such inquisitions in order to prove that in such a case a jury would be unsuitable. In cases under the Mental Treatment Act, he advocated an independent assessment by two doctors. The next speaker was an eminent surgeon Mr. O'Connell who stated that he and many of his colleagues agreed that juries in civil actions should be abolished. He agreed that a judge alone should find the facts of the case but he suggested that the assessment of damages should be done by an expert panel composed of doctors, engineers, sur veyors, etc. Once the rights and wrongs of the case had been established the judge should refer the case to the panel for expert assessment and this panel should report back to the judge, who would then assess the appropriate damages. The final speaker was Mr. Niall McCarthy, Senior Counsel, who referred to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States in which anyone was entitled to a jury in a civil case if the claim exceeded 20 dollars. He stated that the Committee on Court Procedure had rejected the idea of juries in civil trials by a narrow majority of seven votes to five. In his view, a judge would be unable to judge the truth in any better way than twleve reasonable men. A judge was liable to place a particular interpre tation upon the evidence as he had to give reasons for his decisions whereas a jury did not give any reasons for their verdict but merely answered specified questions. If cases of personal injuries were heard before a judge alone this would mul tiply the work of the Supreme Court fivefold because judges would have to give reasons for their decisions. In his view, on the whole jury verdicts could be forecast by insurance companies with accuracy and he wondered whether the 88 that there is

(h) the statement that fusion reduces expense is disputed. Time and skill of the advocate must be remunerated whether he practises indepen dently or as a member of a firm. Opponents of fusion point to the United States as a country in which fusion has not reduced expense. In some other countries where there is fusion de jure there is separation de facto; (i) in common law countries fusion depends on large firms and a high degree of specialisation. In continental countries it is linked with a codified legal system and a different judicial system. In West Germany for instance there are about 12,000 judges and magistrates which pro rata would correspond to about 600 in the Republic of Ire land. Under the civil law of the continental countries the judge does a great deal of the work performed by advocates under the common law system; (j) the supposed economies of fusion would largely disappear unless each law firm had its own law library or unless law libraries were estab lished throughout the country. There would be serious difficulties for the country practitioner who at present through counsel has access to the Bar library in the Four Courts; (k) if all solicitors may practise as barristers the converse position also holds. The large number of non-practising barristers in the civil service, administration, education, etc., would have the right to practise and there might be overcrowding and difficulties of control. There are other arguments on both sides but these seem to be the most important looking at the problem from the point of view of the public interest and the administration of justice. E.A.P. A further contributed article will be published in our next issue. MEDICO LEGAL SOCIETY OF IRELAND A meeting of the Medico Legal Society was held in the Royal Hibernian Hotel on Thursday, 24 February 1966, when a symposium was held on the subject of "Juries in Civil Trials" The first speaker was Mr. P. C. Moore, solicitor, who referred to the case of Ward v. James decided by the Court of Appeal in England, in January 1965 and particularly to Lord Denning's judg ment. Mr. Moore emphasised that there had only been jury trials in civil cases until 1854 but that at present the opposite tendency—trial by judge alone prevailed in England. In fact 98 per cent of actions for personal injuries are tried by a judge alone. The advantage of having a judge alone is that definite standards are laid down in respect