Sir, – The liberty of the people to have access to the Supreme Court is of monumental importance. I was preparing to vote Yes in regard to the court of appeal referendum; as the thought that the judicial appeals process might be speeded-up is attractive. However, the more I have learnt regarding the small print – forensically explored by Prof Diarmuid Rossa Phelan SC (Opinion, September 30th) – attached to this Court of Appeal proposal, the more I am left with no choice but to vote No.
Taking power away from the ordinary person to automatically access the Supreme Court (from the High Court or court of appeal), for the purposes of challenging the constitutionality of a law for example, and putting that power into the hands of Supreme Court judges who may decide to hear appeals if they are satisfied that it is “in the interests of justice” or “of general public importance” (which would be a subjective call on the part of the individual judges) that such appeals are even heard by the court, would radically change the relationship between the citizen and his Constitution.
The second part of this referendum proposal, which would allow minority judgments of the Supreme Court to be published, is also questionable in its wisdom; as the divisive nature of such a practice, while promising transparency on the surface, could turn Supreme Court judges into overtly political figures (as happens in the United States), rather than strict interpreters of the Constitution. This, in addition to the first part of the proposal, may have the effect of giving disproportionate power and untouchability to the Supreme Court in Ireland. – Yours, etc,
JOHN B REID,
Knapton Road,
Monkstown, Co Dublin.
Sir, – I accept there has been a significant increase in complex cases coming before the courts, as put forward by the Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter (September 23rd). But there has also been a correspondingly even greater increase in the number of straightforward cases that are made complex.
For example, should an action concerning the application of the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 to an advertising hoarding on a gable end of a building take two days in the High Court? And should a libel case take five days before a High Court judge and jury? And is a Circuit Court judge not competent enough to hear such cases, with unlimited jurisdiction and without a jury?
Broader reforms in the way we do business in the courts, including letting the Circuit Court have unlimited jurisdiction in certain areas of litigation, with an appeal to the High Court, and consideration of a per-case instead of a per-day payment basis for legal fees, would considerably reduce not only the cost of doing business, but also the time taken up in court during the hearing.
Cheaper alternatives to the proposed court of appeal should have been at least considered and debated before burdening the taxpayer with further public expenditure. – Yours, etc,
BERNARD NEARY,
Croaghpatrick Road,
Cabra, Dublin 7.