ANALYSIS: The establishment of a working group on the courts system means comprehensive rather than piecemeal reform is likely, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent
Last July, the Minister for Justice wrote to the Chief Justice asking him to consider the relationship between the Circuit and Central Criminal courts, with a view to reducing delays.
It can take a year for a trial involving a serious crime such as rape or murder to reach the Central Criminal Court. At the time, a spokesman for the Minister told The Irish Times that he was interested in the two courts having "equivalence", so that less complex, but equally serious, crimes could be tried in the Circuit Courts with no implication for a lesser sentence.
Earlier last year, the Government proposed another change in the jurisdiction of the courts, increasing threefold the money value of the cases which could be tried in the District Court and the Circuit Civil Court.
This would, according to the Government, have the effect of driving a large number of cases out of the High Court and into lower, less expensive courts. The proposal has been opposed by representatives of the legal profession and no legislation has yet emerged.
Yet another proposal emanated from the Department of Enterprise and Employment around the same time, also with a view to reducing the overall cost of litigation to society and reducing some of the logjams in the legal system.
This was the setting up of a personal injuries compensation board, to deal initially with injuries at work, and eventually with traffic accidents. It, too, was opposed by the legal profession and has not yet come into being.
All these proposals were designed to meet real problems in the justice system, principally that of cost to litigants and over-crowding in certain areas. But they were piecemeal, sticking-plaster responses and did not stem from any coherent overall plan.
Meanwhile, in a speech to law students in Cork, the Chief Justice proposed much more far-reaching reforms. These included a radical overhaul of the whole courts structure, abolishing certain types of court and creating others.
One of the problems he identified is that there are three layers of court which are directly accessible to litigants.
The first is the District Court, to which all criminal cases initially go, and which also deals with many civil matters, including a number of family law issues. Then there is the Circuit Court, which deals both with crime (except rape and murder) and civil matters where less than €38,000 is involved, as well as all family law. It is proposed to increase this amount to €100,000. The High Court deals with matters involving sums greater than this, and, like the Central Criminal Court, with rape and murder. It also deals with family law.
Because there are no juries in the Circuit Civil Court, and libel trials are decided by jury, they almost always end up in the High Court, thereby vastly increasing costs. Family law cases can go there at the choice of the parties, and usually do if large amounts of money are at stake.
Mr Justice Keane proposed reducing the number of local courts from two to one, with the District Courts taking over much of the work at present done by the Circuit Courts, including most family law. The High Court would have unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters and would deal with all serious crime, but sit outside Dublin, with all High Court judges rotating. It would hear major constitutional cases and judicial reviews in Dublin.
He also proposed a new Court of Appeal, with two divisions, civil and criminal. It would hear appeals from the High Court, leaving the Supreme Court to decide constitutional matters and points of law of public importance.
It was during the speech outlining these proposals that Mr Justice Keane launched his proposal for a working group on the matter, a proposal which came to fruition with yesterday's announcement.
While both he and its chairman, Mr Justice Fennelly, made it clear that the slate was clean with regard to the recommendations that would eventually be made by the group, the type of root-and-branch reforms canvassed by the Chief Justice are likely to feature largely.
Undoubtedly, the judiciary hopes this will cut off at the pass the tendency of various Government departments to advance their own proposals by tinkering with the system in response to lobbying from interest groups.