The Gazette 1978

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1978

decisions were properly vested in the Government. As regards the distribution of State work which was his most unpleasant function his main concern was to support the public interest. It followed that the number of prosecuting barristers must, of necessity, be limited. This Resolution was duly passed. Mr. Donal Barrington, S.C., Chairman of the Bar Council, proposed the Resolution "That the Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society of Ireland is worthy of the support of Solicitors' Apprentices, of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and of the Solicitors' profession." He said that there had been a bad tradition that the Government should only consult the people it could allegedly trust. But, Mr. Declan Costello, as Attorney- General, had introduced a major change which greatly enhanced the barristers' profession. In a word, barristers were henceforth selected for State work according to their merit regardless of their political affiliations. The difficulty was to get a minimum of experience in order to conduct yourself satisfactorily in your first cases. Mr Barrington agreed with Mr. Justice Finlay that it was desirable that lawyers should take in interest in politics but this should not be exclusively so. While the appointment should rest with the Government, nevertheless as the proposed Judges would have been barristers in practice, it would be worthwhile that their colleagues views should be taken into account in relation to such matters as knowledge of the law, suitability, and courtesy. There is little doubt that many litigants will accept the fact that they have lost their case if they think they have had a good hearing. The Resolution was duly passed. Mrs. Quinlan then thanked the Auditor and speakers for their contributions. The Meeting then terminated.

and far-reaching responsibilities for the administration of the Courts, for the listing of cases and in general for the despatch of the business of their Courts. That involves, amongst other things of course, a responsibility for the control of the staff attached to the Courts in relation to the despatch of Court business. No member of the judiciary however has any formal right to request or demand from the Legislature or the Executive any funds or any staff for the purpose of carrying out those duties. Personal relations and personal communications in my experience between members of the Judiciary and the appropriate Ministers of State and members of the Government in successive Governments have always been courteous and full. That, however, is unfortunately clearly not sufficient. Some more formal structure is required. It is, in a sense, meaningless to vest in a particular member or members of the Judiciary the right to direct or control the staff of the Courts to carry out a specific function if there is no further right in the same member or members of the Judiciary to control the recruitment, training and extent of that staff. It is equally meaningless to vest in a member or members of the Judiciary the right to allot business to colleagues, to allocate the cases and number of cases which should be tried by them in any particular area or over any particular time unless you also give to the same member or members some right to secure the provision of the accommodation in which that business can be transacted. In general in society at present in Ireland people are taking a fresh look at many of our institutions and many of our structures. Much of that is imaginative, much of it is progressive and some of it appears to be achieved or in the process of achievement. It seems to me that a time has certainly arrived and probably been passed when the Legislature and the Executive could well look with a fresh mind and an imaginative approach at the structure of the Courts and could, by a relatively simple alteration in the statutory provisions effecting them, greatly enhance their efficiency and capacity and thus fully discharge the duties which the Legislature and Executive have to respect in a real way the independence of the Judiciary. Mr. Eamonn Barnes, Director of Public Prosecutions, duly seconded this Resolution. He said he fully supported Mr. Justice Finlay's remarks regarding the administration of the Courts. There had been very serious arrears in Criminal cases and as a result of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, the backlog of Dublin Circuit Criminal Cases took as long as 3 to 4 years before the cases were heard, but as a result of recent steps there had been great improvements. He was firmly of the opinion that justice delayed was justice denied. As regards patronage he was inclined to agree with Samuel Johnson's definition of patronage to the effect that this was "a distribution of jobs in accordance with a system where merit does not necessarily play a major part". This definitely did not apply to the recent Irish Judiciary because, having perused the list of Irish Judges since 1934, he was of opinion that more than 30 of them would have graced the Bench. Amongst the names he mentioned were those of Kennedy, Hanna, Lavery, Gavan Duffy, Kingsmill Moore, Sullivan and O'Dalaigh — men who would have become Judges under any system. He pointed out that many barristers made financial sacrifices by becoming Judges and this reduced their incomes considerably. He agreed with Mr. Justice Finlay that on the whole politics was a necessary and honourable profession and that the major political

Valuation for compensation is our business

Osborne King &Megran

Dublin 700251 Cork 21371 Galway 66261

23