AFTER recent reports in newspapers concerning delays in the family courts, Judge Catherine McGuinness yesterday issued the following statement:
"I have been somewhat concerned at the content of two reports appearing in yesterday's [Tuesday's] newspapers. The first is in the Irish Independent, entitled, `Couple's two year wait in silence for judge' and written by Mr Ray Managh, and the second in The Irish Times entitled `Marital case couple face year's delay' which is unattributed.
"Both reports contain information about the content of a particular family law case, based on disclosures by a legal source in the Four Courts' or a source in the Four Courts'. The information is not detailed and is not in itself a breach of the in camera rule.
"However, lest further and more detailed revelations appear in future, I felt it best to point out that under Section 34 of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, all proceedings under the Act must be heard in camera. This means not only that the hearing is conducted in private but that solicitors and barristers are not free to discuss the facts and details of these cases with members of the press or the public. Equally, members of the press may not report such facts and details of individual cases.
"Both reports express concern that there is a delay of a year in the shearing of the case in question. This is closely coupled with criticisms of the Circuit Civil Court listing system and what is described as judicial manpower wastage.
"Reference is made to a recent survey (totally unidentified as to its authorship or authority) which suggests that 80-90 per cent of cases listed for hearing have been settled on the morning of court. I am aware that this is not, in the reports, referrable to the Family Court but I am concerned lest couples involved in the tragedy of marital breakdown may feel that their cases are being delayed due to this type of fault in the listing system.
"I can, of course, speak only for the Dublin Circuit Family Court. It is true that there is an unfortunate and unacceptable delay at present in the hearing of judicial" separation proceedings. Over a year, on average, elapses between the filing of an application and the hearing of the action. On many occasions the court has found itself in the position of apologising wholeheartedly to parties and to practitioners for these delays.
"However, I would stress that they are not to any significant degree due to the management of the listing system or to waste of judicial manpower. Nor do 80-90 per cent of cases settle on the morning of the hearing. I am conscious that solicitors and counsel who regularly practise in this court make very great efforts to assist their clients to reach agreement through counselling, mediation, and legal advice both before and after proceedings have issued and that they are conscientious in informing the court in advance of, any settlement so that other urgent cases may be put into the list.
"Allowance is made in the listing system for the settlement of a proportion of cases on the day of hearing. Despite all this there constant need for this court to sit, outside normal sitting hours to deal with urgent applications and I know that this is also the case with family law on other circuits.
"The difficulties in the present family law system and their causes, have been well set out in the recent Law Reform Commission report on Family Courts. No doubt the operation of the listing system is open to improvement and I have no doubt that the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on case management will be carefully studied.
"However, the simplest and most basic cause of delay is the huge increase in the number of cases of judicial separation since the coming into force of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989, coupled with a" lack of personnel available to deal with the caseload. I very much hope that this situation will be ameliorated by the forthcoming welcome appointment by the Government of additional circuit court judges."