Madam, - Adrian Hardiman's attack on court reporters (November 26th) is sadly misplaced in that he attempts at a stroke to convict the handful of journalists employed to daily cover hundreds of court cases while all but acquitting employers who, for whatever reason, have reduced court reportage to skeletal proportions.
I believe his broadside against the media allows court reporters such as myself an opportunity of highlighting publicly a situation concerning most of his fellow judges in the High and other courts whose handling of cases, from a point of view of justice being administered in public, is far from beyond criticism.
There are 38 High Court judges, just over 20 of whom daily administer justice, often in cramped courtrooms, in and around the Four Courts from Bow Street to the Kings Inns.
They have heavy lists to get through and they pay scant regard to the numerous judgments handed down by the Supreme Court about the "logical, rigorous, developing and humane" administration of justice publicly in accordance with law.
How, Mr Hardiman, is a reporter to cover a High Court application or trial where the judge retires to his chambers to "read the papers" and returns to tell barristers they may "take their order" with neither a jot nor tittle of the evidence being opened publicly?
What would Mr Hardiman think of any judge - and sadly they number more than a few - who would grant without question an application for a matter to be heard in camera? I have yet to hear a High Court judge say "convince me" to any barrister when met with such a request.
Who, then, must carry the blame for these situations? Certainly the judges themselves should bear a lot of it but a significant proportion must be borne by the Courts Service and the Courts Service Board both of which have failed miserably in providing or seeking to provide any service to facilitate documentary assistance or any coverage of cases.
He criticises members of the media for leaving court early before proceedings are completed and accuses them of inaccurate or incomplete coverage. Radio, television and evening paper reporters have to leave intermittently to file copy and it is not a reasonable expectation to have journalists sit in every court, be they Supreme, High, Circuit or District.
The newspaper has yet to be printed that will facilitate the inclusion of numerous judgments many of which run to tens of thousands of words. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - The Irish secretary of the National Union of Journalists, Séamus Dooley, was wrong to call Mr Justice Hardiman "ill informed" when the eminent judge commented on the standard of court reporting.
Adrian Hardiman is not just one of the bravest judges in Ireland today; he is also one of the finest thinkers on the judiciary in the world today.
He does not get involved in idle debate.
He is a strident defender of the role of the courts in the justice system today.
When he does choose to enter a debate, he does so with his formidable forensic and analytical skills. If court reporters had even some of his ability, the legal pages would undoubtedly be the first one would turn to in the morning.
As someone who has read Supreme Court judgments for a number of years, it is clear to my mind that Mr Justice Hardiman's judgments are delivered in a lucid and concise way which makes the law more understandable for the non-jurist. Reporters should listen to Mr Justice Hardiman when he speaks.
As for the outrageous accusation that Mr Justice Hardiman's comments were sexist, if a small-minded journalist cannot detect humour in a speech, how can we expect them to understand a court judgment? - Yours, etc,