TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 17 °C Thursday 20 June, 2013

Column: ‘The current situation of the Supreme Court is unsustainable’

Chief Justice Susan Denham pays tribute to the Constitution on its 75th birthday – and examines the case for a drastic overhaul of Ireland’s judicial system.

Justice Susan Denham Chief Justice of Ireland

THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY of the enactment of the Constitution is a milestone to be acknowledged and celebrated. As our Basic Law there is much to appreciate in the Constitution of Ireland.

In doing so I am mindful of the environment of 1937 within which the Constitution was framed. At this time an increasing sense of despair descended across continental Europe. Many countries were experiencing suffering and hardship during the Great Depression. Alignments were being made in advance of World War II. In this political climate human rights were not a priority.

Against this backdrop, our young country, on the edge of Europe, was in the process of enacting a Basic Law which propounded legally enforcable rights, and imposed upon the State the obligation to guarantee and to defend those rights.

The driving concept of the Constitution is the sovereignty of the People and that all powers of government come from them. There is much to admire in the Constitution – to even be “startled” by – when one ponders many of its innovations created in the midst of 1930s Europe. For this reason the document is a prescient Constitution.

A role model for abroad

This prescience is best illustrated by a number of examples. Many of the Fundamental Rights included in 1937 Constitution were ahead of their time. Five of the fifty articles of the Constitution are devoted to Fundamental Rights. In the years following World War II the international community adopted international instruments such as the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which proclaimed many of the fundamental rights which were already contained in the Irish Constitution.

Likewise, the Directive Principles of Social Policy which are directed to the Oireachtas have come to be adopted in other constitutions enacted after 1937 in various jurisdictions.

Article 40.3 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Courts as protecting unenumerated rights which are not written in the constitutional text. The Constitution is interpreted by the judiciary as a living entity to reflect the contemporary times of the Irish People. It is a Living Constitution reflecting today’s reality as much as that of 1937.

In the Preamble of the Constitution the dignity of the person is a central concept and the right to human dignity is now a part of human rights law at an international and European level. Indeed, this very Irish concept of dignity is contained in 80 per cent of constitutions adopted since WWII.

The centrality of dignity goes back to the Brehon Laws which made it an offence to shame a person, particularly those with a disability. This emphasises the long history and importance of dignity in Irish law and our heralding the concept to the world through our history, emigration and constitution.

Likewise the Constitution ensures Judicial review is entrusted to the High Court and the Supreme Court and so Ireland led the common law world in 1937 by expressly providing for it in Article 34.3.2 of the Constitution.

An example of forward thinking

The Supreme Court recently held in Damache v. DPP that section 29(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939, as inserted by section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1976, was repugnant to Article 40.5 of the Constitution.

In 2001, the German Constitutional Court illustrated a very similar reasoning process to that in the Damache case, in upholding the constitutional right of the inviolability of the dwelling as outlined in Article 13 of the German Basic Law, the Grundgesetz.

This illustrates how two European courts arrived at a similar conclusion without reference to each other, in upholding the constitutional right of inviolability of the dwelling. It shows how prescient and forward thinking the drafters of our Constitution where.

The future shape of Ireland’s Superior Courts

The drafters of Bunreacht na hÉireann had considered establishing a Constitutional Court in addition to the High Court and the Supreme Court. There is documentary evidence to suggest that De Valera also considered altering the courts structure in place at the time.

Article 34 of the Constitution establishes the High Court as a Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court as the Court of Final Appeal. Article 34.3.4 provides for the establishment of courts of local and limited jurisdiction. There is no express provision enabling the Oireachtas to establish other courts. This is in stark contrast to the situation in other common law jurisdictions. In these jurisdictions, Parliament is vested with the power to establish such courts.

The drafters of the Constitution could never have anticipated the growth in the volume of litigation, its complexity and diversity, throughout the legal system. Litigation reflects the radical changes in society which have occurred in Ireland in the last 75 years, especially in the last 25 years. The court structure required in 2012 is different to that of 1937.

To date in 2012 a total of 255 new appeals have been filed with the Supreme Court, which confirms that the upward trend in its caseload continues and that in the region of 500 new appeals will likely be lodged this year. There are 486 appeals in the general list ready for hearing. It is estimated it would take the Court three and a half years just to hear and decide all of the appeals now lodged. Even priority cases wait nine months.

A growing workload – and an unsustainable future

Under the Constitution there is effectively an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court in most civil cases. A troubling feature recently is that there is evidence that even High Court case management directions are now being appealed in some of the very complex and lengthy commercial and fiscal cases before the High Court.

The current situation of the Supreme Court is unsustainable.

For a number of years, I have advocated the establishment of a Court of Appeal set between the High Court and the Supreme Court. This would transform Ireland’s courts structure and bring about tangible benefits, including a decrease in waiting times for litigants, improve conditions for commerce, which in turn would aid economic growth and development.

Our Supreme Court, as in every other common law jurisdiction, could then focus on cases relating to constitutional law or to cases of exceptional public importance. The Government has committed to the establishment of a Court of Appeal in its Programme for Government 2011-2016.

However, this matter may be viewed in a wider context, taking into consideration the possibility and benefit of other courts also. We need to look into the future and beyond the establishment of a Court of Appeal.

Ireland stands alone

Ireland would appear to be unique in terms of amending the Superior Courts structure. For example in Australia, Parliament has created the Federal Family Court which is a specialist superior court of record. It deals with more complex family law matters and support services such as counselling and mediation are available to litigants.

At present family law issues in this country are dealt with for the most part by the District Court and the Circuit Court, at a time when Courts Service figures show that there has been a very significant increase across the board in family law cases.

The Programme for Government 2011-2016 also commits to the introduction of a constitutional amendment to allow for the establishment of a distinct and separate system of family courts to streamline family law court processes and make them more efficient and less costly, as soon as resources as permit.

Thus, I believe there is merit in looking at the needs of the court structure in a wider context, and bearing in mind future potential needs. Therefore, rather than a specific amendment for a specific court, perhaps consideration should be given to an amendment giving to the Oireachtas the power to establish courts other than those of limited and local jurisdiction.

Such an amendment to the Constitution could ask the People in a referendum the fundamental question:

‘Do you approve that the Oireachtas be given the power to establish additional courts, including courts of superior jurisdiction, for the administration of the laws of Ireland?’

In this way other new superior courts could then be established, as in other jurisdictions, to administer law in specific areas including maybe a dedicated environmental law court.

A debt of gratitude to those who went before

We owe a debt of gratitude to the drafters of the Constitution – for this living instrument, which is at the core of our society. As Chief Justice, on this the 75th anniversary of our Constitution, I want to acknowledge the drafters of the Constitution who provided legal advice to De Valera. These include Philip O’Donoghue, Michael McDunphy, Stephen Anselm Roche, Maurice Moynihan and John J Hearne.

De Valera described Hearne as the “Architect in Chief and Draftsman of this Constitution”. This native of Waterford might be seen as Ireland’s Thomas Jefferson.

The Constitution has provided the basic legal framework to the Irish People. However, time does not stand still and its inexorable passage undoubtedly raises new challenges. It is the People who will ultimately decide on how best to confront such challenges.

A present day challenge, which I have outlined here, is the structure of our superior courts which the Government has indicated will be considered by the People.

Justice Susan Denham is the Chief Justice of Ireland. This is an abridged version of a speech delivered last night to the UCD Constitutional Studies Group conference on ‘The Irish Constitution: Past, Present and Future’.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

About the author:

Justice Susan Denham  / Chief Justice of Ireland

Read next:

Comments (29 Comments)

  • Excellent article. Perhaps the Supreme Court could be dramatically revamped and upgraded with several new judges appointed?
    A second problem with the Judicial system is the politically controlled judicial appointment process which taints what should be an entirely independent function.
    Thirdly, prohibitively high costs, unconscionable delays and in some cases a deficit in niche expertise render the judicial system, as presently structured, wholly unconstitutional. There is a barrier to entry to the justice system for many and these barriers benefit those parties with substantial / unlimited resources to the detriment of the people the constitution is supposed to protect.
    Keep up the forward thinking.

    Reply
    • Like alot of public systems in Ireland those in receipt of its expenditures fare far better than those paying for it and dependent on its purported functions. 10 lawyers required with all the politically infected archaic system of junior counsel their devil, senior counsel, Law firms. They would all have you believe they do the legal equivalent of brain surgery in reality it is akin to dispensing standard positions to routine controversies. What goes on in the High Court day in day out is routine legal work, the type that one would see in any state court system in the United States, in the US a lawyer is a lawyer, no political interference in the market for legal services through political conference of senior status, no need to go through a law firm to then have to get them to hire an advocate and there is no evidence to suggest that this system fails to provide the same standard of justice to society as the archaic colonial nonsense that goes in the courts of a 21 st century Republic. Get rid of the cape and the need for 4 overpaid people to do what can easily be done by 2, they will argue tile they are blue in the face that there resistance to reform has nothing to do with a fear of reduced earnings but can offer little argument for the need for the current system and no factual evidence. The EU authorities had a look at it and can see it for the uncompetitive gravy train that it is and in light of the constitution that costs demanded to pay for this charade do act as a bar on a persons constitutional right of access to the courts.

      Reply
    • To be fair Judges perform a very challenging role as the Chief Justice points out they are subjected to a workload that in its volume interferes with a persons right of access to the courts. A judge has a far higher degree of responsibility and accountability than any advocate (who is often earning a multiple of the judge) that appears before them. Alot of people say they are very well paid and they are and that they have so many months off however with the volume of work that there is, it would be impossible to adjudicate on all matters to a standard in which each and every decision is fully supported by law without working very long hours, clearly legal services need reform but so does the judiciary so that the burden is lessened on Judges and justice can be administered in a more efficient way.

      Reply
  • Fantastic article. The constitution is the document upon which we all stand tall.

    Reply
  • I agree Martin that we need tougher longer sentences but it’s not only people on welfare that commit crimes.

    Reply
  • They need to give out tougher, longer sentences. And hit them where it hurts. Their welfare payments.

    Reply
    • I agree Martin. The legal system in this country is a joke.

      Reply
    • I agree. The sentences handed down are supposed to be a deterrent to crime. When pre-meditated murder is called “manslaughter” by the courts, and the convicted is given a 4-year “slap on the wrist” it says something about our lack of value for human life – the victim, the grieving family, and those put at risk when the killer is released.

      Reply
  • Try telling the families of murder victims / tiger kidnappings / shootings etc about the damache case in which people are walking out of our courts free after committing horrendous crimes . judges live in dreamland and are oblivious to the real world .

    Reply
    • Dead right Gerry!

      Reply
    • Nearly Gerry, Judges are there to protect the innocent and to defend society. There is a tired, and indeed disliked, adage amongst the legal community, that it is better to free a guilty man than to imprison an innocent one. That is the basis upon which we must work. If you were an innocent man facing an unjust trial, you would say the same.

      Reply
    • Phil your missin Gerry’s point. Demanche weakened the Garda hand to tackle serious crimes and secure evidence to convict serious criminals, who in my opinion make this country a little less nicer to live in to what it once was. These tiger kidnappers and the likes were obviously guilty and found so by the courts following pleas of guilty/trial. Just because a warrant is now deemed unconstitutional and evidence secured under that warrant is now inadmissible doesn’t make them innocent.

      Reply
    • So what Zack? Would you want to live in a country where the police can just do whatever they want?

      Reply
    • I’m not missing anyone’s point thanks though for trying to educate me. Damache, and the point of law that is contained therein is designed to protect people from unconstitutional attack. The idea is that a warrant must have an objective intervening person to certify that the warrant is for genuine reasons, where time permits – so that it’s not, for example, a policeman or his boss who’s been harassing you for months on end for an endless vendetta etc. This may seem mad to most law abiding people in Ireland but is actually something which is never taken for granted in many countries throughout the world.

      And Gerry, probably like me, you think that you are ok because you are a good person and good people never go to jail… the constitutional system we have is designed so that good people don’t end up behind bars. And the greatest bit about it is that you can complain about it as publicly and vehemently as you like – we live in a republican democracy.

      Reply
    • well said gerry, victims have a right to justice, lots of people seem to forget that. the scales of justice are meant to be balanced?

      Reply
    • Of course not censored, I want to live in a country where proper criminals, those who intimidate and reek havoc in their communities, are punished by the law when found guilty ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.

      Reply
    • How anyone can think the Demanche case weakened the ability of the Gardai to do their job is beyond me. Or do people think that the police in other countries – who have to get Judges to sign warrants instead of being able to sign them themselves, as the Gardai currently do – are unable to do their jobs too?

      Reply
    • The Damache decision is the right one, however like many decisions with regard to Irish law it appears that the state is given a choice of implementing an uncon law that serves a very necessary purpose or failing to implement any law to serve that purpose. Clearly a police person needs a warrant in expedient circumstances to get evidence and enable the succesfull prosecution of vile crimes that terrorize our society, decisions like Damache do not instill confidence in the police that the state is in full support of their efforts and it is fair to say the State has failed in the effective prosecution of alot of serious crimes, sadly alot of victims of horrendous behaviour in Ireland never receive justice. We can all agree that for those inclined Ireland is a very easy place to be a criminal with serious sanctions only reserved for the most heinous crimes. Clearly in order to enable the Gardai and still adhere to fundamental concepts of justice enshrined in the constitution, there should be a series of Judges rostered on call 24/7 in the event that a senior gardai needs a warrant, with technology it is not difficult to present the grounds of the warrant anywhere in the country within seconds of the decision to apply for one, the judge can then determine if grounds are sufficient to issue the warrant. This provides the degree of expediency the Gardai need and preserves the necessary impartiality required to issue warrants that are in adherance to fundamental concepts of justice. The validity of any warrant can be affirmed as being issued with the approval of an impartial adjudicator, however in Ireland the state simply prevents the Gardai from having the tools needed to fight crime. Its the same with the public inquiries they offered a sledge hammer when what was required was a scapula. Its just a failure of administration not law.

      Reply
  • A good article and an interesting read. Thank you.

    I found this comment particularly interesting:
    “The driving concept of the Constitution is the sovereignty of the People and that all powers of government come from them.”

    This is very appealing but I’m torn. In a way it almost suggests that parish pump politics is the right way to go – at lease you’re respecting the will of the people. On the other hand, the arrogance displayed by many of our politicians once they get into power doesn’t seem to fit with that.

    If all powers of Government come from the people then why do not have any way to recall a Government or force a referendum on major decisions like Iceland did on the $5bn Icesave “repayments”.

    Reply
  • Susan Denham forgot to mention that other drafter of the Irish Constitution – John Charles McQuaid.

    Reply
  • How about the gentleman in cork that got 7 years for hijacking a garda vehicle , Threatening a garda etc . 7 years ? Out after 4 and a half . Perhaps ms Denham would be better off concentrating her learned mind on the lenient sentencing regimes of our pampered judges .nAs for the demache case , it has absolutely nothing to do with a police state like some contributors are saying . The Gardai acted within the law at all times and now the three panel of judges at the supreme court [ms Denham being one of them]has ruled it unconstitutional . However

    Reply
  • I think you will find that the Damache ruling only applies into the future or to cases which are still under appeal and or relying on the same defense. It has not resulted in a large number of new appeals – as it just affects active ones of a similar nature.

    Reply
  • There’ll be more from our conference on the Constitution all day today and Saturday. Follow our live tweets with #bunreacht75.

    Reply
  • would it have been too mix to as to also rule that any warrants issued before the rules could be used retrospectively? no that would have made too much sense . nnAgain this would be an absolute scandal if it were a judges/ politicians son that had been murdered and the culprit walked free because of ms denhams fantastic ruling . Because its not people don’t care .nnHow many people have got off ira membership charges since february because of this ruling ?

    Reply
  • What about separation of powers? Giving government the ability to create courts makes the judiciary accountable to government. The govt would have the capability of creating a higher court if it disagreed with a judgement. It’s an unlikely outcome but a constitution has to take such things into account.
    Maybe if the amendment provides for a majority of supreme court justices agree with the govts requirement for another court..

    Reply
    • Given that the Constitution (Article 6.1) is clear that we , citizens are the source of power in our republic, the key question is to what extent Chief Justice Denham’s proposal adds to checks and balances to limit the scope for excess by the powerful, be they public or private, elected or appointed?
      Note that our Constiution does not allow for a separation of powers between the Dail-Seanad(legislature) and the Government(executive). Montesquieu, a pre-French revolutionary thinker noted that where the executive and legislature are combined, there is no freedom.

      Reply

Add New Comment