The Gazette 1978

GAZETTE

MAY 1978

court system. I would refer you to the speech made by the President of the High Court, The Honourable Mr. Justice Finlay, at the inaugural meeting of the Solicitors' Appren- tices Debating Society in January, 1978, the text of which is published in the Society's g a z e t t e, and which many of you, I am sure, will have read with considerable interest. I strongly support the criticism and concern expressed by the President on that occasion, and I would urge the Minister to take due account of that concern, when con- sidering the matters to which he requires the recon- stituted Committee on Court Practice and Procedure to address themselves. Fourthly, it would be tedious to give examples of the way in which court procedures might be modernised. Every practising lawyer can produce these from his own experience, but 1 will take two in particular. It seems to me, quite illogical that a wife or a husband seeking a judicial separation and also seeking relief under the Guardianship of Infants Act, and the Family Home Protection Act, should have to institute two separate sets of proceedings in the High Court, one of which must be instituted by way of petition, a procedure, with which most practitioners are unfamili ar and the originating document in which it is couched is language reminiscent of the middle ages. Likewise, in non contentious matters, it should surely be possible to mark judgement in the High Court and obtain an execution order without having to file a multiplicity of differnt forms, again couched in terms which only classical scholars are equipped to interpret. I want it to be clearly understood that these criticisms are not directed either at the hard-working officers, whose duty it is to administer the present system nor at the practitioners who deal with them. Clearly, it is necessary for someone to stand back and look at the system critically, with a view to recommending radical reforms, which with the help of modern technology will, at the one time both bring the system up-to-date and allow it to operate efficiently without involving enormous extra cost. So far as the Society is concerned, I think I can fairly say, that we will endeavour to provide any assistance, within our power, towards achieving the radical reforms which I think are very necessary, always bearing in mind, that we are a voluntary organisation, dependent on the generous giving of their time and energy by our members. We have no vested interest that I can identify in maintain- ing the present system and indeed on the contrary, since the public generally deals with the system through us, we tend, sometimes unfairly, to be blamed for the inadequacies of the system, over which we have little or no control. I would urge the Minister to consider these matters comprehensively, and to ensure that whatever body is entrusted with the task of reform will be adequately equipped in terms of research staff to perform their functions, and also that the Minister and the Government would commit themselves politically, to the imple- mentation of the recommended reforms, with the assurance that the resources necessary will be allocated. Legislation Recent years have witnessed enactment of a consider- able volume of legislation, some of it quite controversial. I have no doubt that as the present Government's proposals are developed within the civil service, there will be a further volume of legislation. In these circum- stances, it is essential that our Society, being concerned with the affairs of the practitioners and of the public, should concern itself with a detailed examination of 77

perform the radical task of producing a blue print for the organisation of the administration of justice, in this country, for decades to come. Most of us who have to deal with the system of court administration can point to particular matters which could be improved on, but individually, none of us are competent to produce an overall plan, for coping with difficulties. In my view, and I stress that I am speaking personally, much of the difficulty arises from the fact that we get the system of administration of justice which we pay for. The Committee on Court Practice and Procedure, in their 17th report, drew attention to the fact, that for the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1972, the estimate for public services for the courts was just over £1,000,000. The estimate for the current year is £3.4 million pounds. This must be contrasted with the fact that the total budgeted estimate of expenditure is £2.1 billion pounds of this, the vote for the Department of Social Welfare is £309 million, Health, £357 million and Education, £350 million. There are four particular areas, in which it is clear, that additional resources would be required in order to effect any significant improvement in the operation of the court system. First, I quote from the 12th Interim Report of the Committee: "Paragraph 160—Courthouses. The position as to the provision and maintenance of courthouse accommodation is far from satisfactory. This causes us concern, in so much as we consider, that it is almost impossible to uphold respect for the law in some of the dilapidated courthouses at present in use." The minority report of Mr. Micks and Mr. Justice McMahon, put the matter in stronger terms: "On this topic we agree with the recommendations of the report and we dissent from our colleagues, only in their choice of language in describing the position as to the provision and maintenance of courthouse accommodation as 'far from satisfactory'. The condition of many courthouses is scandalous and not merely impairs the proper administration of justice, but also makes it difficult for the ordinary layman to have any respect for legal process." While there have been improvements in particular areas, I doubt if there is any practitioner here today, who could not identify several courthouses that come fairly within the description of the minority report to which I have referred. Increase In Judges Secondly, an increase in the number of judges. The same report to which I have referred recommended an increase in the number of Circuit Court Judges, and indeed, since the report was published, both the number of Circuit Judges and the number of High Court Judges has increased. In the latter case, to a point were, for the time being at any rate, there are more judges than there are courts in which they can sit. It is clear that in the formulation of any new broadly based policy, the number of judges required would have to be reconsidered, par- ticurly, in line with any recommended increases in jurisdiction in the lower courts. Registrars and Court Staff The next matter which requires radical re-appraisal is the provision of Registrars and other staff to service the