A chara, – We are told a new court of appeal needs to be established because of an “unacceptable” backlog of cases on appeal. This new court will involve, of course, the appointment of new judges, and more money trickling down the line for the legal profession.
Meanwhile, our health (and education) services are crippled by a recruitment embargo, which prevents the appointment of new medical personnel, teachers, etc, despite “unacceptable” backlogs and lengthening waiting lists in all hospital departments.
Existing health (and education) staff are expected to work harder and longer. Why can’t the judges do the same? Shorten their holidays, lengthen their working day, and let the legal backlog be dealt with the same way as hospital backlogs.
If we don’t have money for our hospitals, why should lawyers jump the queue? When we stop paying money to the banks, and have put the crisis behind us, then perhaps we might look at the idea of a new court, more judges and more money for the privileged. Let’s get our priorities right. – Is mise,
SINÉAD de RÓISTE,
Riversdale Avenue,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.
Sir, – So the Master of the High Court, Edmund Honohan, feels the proposed court of appeal is a “crude device” that will lead to a rise in appeals. (Front page, September 30th). The fact is that the referendum on Friday has been called to deal with the issue precisely because there is evidence that the backlog on appeals is so considerable that it goes far beyond mere administration and case management as suggested by Mr Honohan. It is a truism to say that justice delayed is justice denied. I assume that Mr Honohan will accept that, under the Constitution, our citizens are mature enough to make up their own minds on whether the proposed court of appeal is necessary or not. It is part of the democratic process for voters to decide on such matters. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK JUDGE,
Rochestown Avenue,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.