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: 10 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Referendum will allow radical reform of courts system

The Cabinet has approved plans for a major reform to the courts service – including the possibility of a secular oath for judges.

Image: gpoo via Flickr

THE CABINET has approved a series of proposed reforms to Ireland’s courts system – including measures which will require a referendum to amend the Constitution.

Ministers this morning approved proposals to amend Article 34 of the Constitution – a move which would allow the Oireachtas to set up new courts such as a Civil Court of Appeal or a specialised Family Court structure.

The Cabinet also agreed to consider whether the amendment could also amend the oath of offices taken by judges – allowing them to take a secular oath “in the presence of Almighty God” and seeking the guidance of God to “direct and sustain” them.

The agreement comes after the Chief Justice, Susan Denham, said the current workload being faced by the Supreme Court was unworkable – and lent her support to the creation of a new superior court to deal with appeals in civil cases.

Justice Denham had chaired a 2009 review group which recommended the creation of a new Court of Appeal which would hear civil appeals from the High Court as well as subsuming the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Announcing the Cabinet’s decision, Shatter said the proposals would also allow the Oireachtas to create specialist superior courts, as needed, to deal with unique circumstances as they arose.

Other changes to be considered by the government include amending the procedures under which draft Bills are referred to the Supreme Court for a test of their constitutionality.

Shatter said he believed this procedure needed to be reviewed so that the justices of the Supreme Court would be able to issue dissenting minority judgments – as the current system, where only the majority verdict is published, “may create an artificial appearance of unanimity”.

“Consideration is being given to whether there should be greater transparency and whether it is in the public interest that individual members of the court should be enabled to deliver individual judgments,” Shatter said.

Challenging the unchallengable

In what may be a major move, the government will also consider amendments which could allow subsequent constitutional challenges against legislation which has already been tested by the Supreme Court in such a manner.

This could mean that legislation which has already been ruled upon by the Supreme Court could be open to challenge after a certain period, for example five years, or could be contested based on legal questions other than those raised at the time of the original ruling.

Other amendments being considered are whether the Supreme Court can dismiss any referral from a President, if there was no “proper factual or evidential basis” on which the Bill actually needed to be examined.

The minister said he hoped the announcement would kick-start a public debate on the measures, “as the time has come to explore the much needed reform of the current Constitutional framework”.

A decision on when to hold the referendum will be made at a later date – though it is not likely to be held for at least a year, given the time it would take to draft the wording of any replacement proposals.

The government has also pledged a standalone referendum this autumn on giving Constitutional standing to the rights of the child, as well as committing to a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad in 2013.

Read: Irish courts heard 80 rape, 39 murder cases last year

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

Read next:

Comments (10 Comments)

  • Lamb 17/07/12 #

    They need to drop the piece that moves power away from the president towards the dail or it’ll turn voters off. Some people say its a tick the box exercise but we’ve been served well by the last few presidents. I think the guys in the dail are undermining democracy…great about the new courts but I’ll vote for the greater good.

    Reply
  • These measures are an excellent start to legal reform in this country. As long as independence of the judiciary is strengthened and the regulation of the legal professions are independent of those two professions, the government and each other, all reform should be considered.

    Reply
  • Small change d whole legal system needs a serious shake up. Less fees and sort out that legal aid black hole.

    Reply
    • I agree Irish. Hardly what I’d call “radical”. Having judges appointed by the people instead of politicians would be radical but hardly likely.
      The possibility of specialised family law courts would, however, be a positive. That said, if the same shower of plonkers are running the show using the same discriminatory laws that currently exist then it will only amount to jobs for the boys, or girls, no doubt with higher salaries and better perks.

      Reply
    • we need a major shake up of the legal sytem ,we need a lay judge to sit on every bench with the pillars that are presiding there,i would not trust them with a parking ticket

      Reply
    • @ Irish Mule.

      The legal system needs an overhaul. Not in the ways you suggest though.

      Fees have nothing to do with anything – its a free market society – if you dont want to pay fees then shop around and get quotes from a variety of professionals. Most dont do this.

      Legal aid “black hole” – gibberish. I assume you are talking about criminal legal aid. The Irish public get REMARKABLE value for money from the legal aid system. Its extremely cheap for what it costs.

      @ Hugh Hicks – the Judges appointment is an absolute disgrace and shoiuld be taken away from the executive. It should not be given to the people, that is just daft. A Judicial committe of the Chief Justice, President of the High Court, Taoiseach, Tanaiste, President and Attorney General and perhaps members of the opposition should sit in committe on remuneration, appointment and discipline of the judiciary.

      @ Dermot Purcell
      Drivel from start to finish

      Reply
  • …”Other amendments being considered are whether the Supreme Court can dismiss any referral from a President, if there was no “proper factual or evidential basis” on which the Bill actually needed to be examined.”

    This is extremely worrying and obviously in reaction to Michael D’s declaration that had the government decided not to check the constitutionality of the Fiscal Compact with the AG, that he would. Enda & Co.Ltd are self serving, power hungry liars who believe that the state (ie. we the people) has nothing better to do with money than hold referendum after referendum.

    Reply
    • “Enda & Co.Ltd are self serving, power hungry liars who believe that the state (ie. we the people) has nothing better to do with money than hold referendum after referendum.”

      I disagree on your assertion re the cost of a referendum. Many people on this site demanded a referendum on the recent Treaty and got their wish. And the €50m or so a referendum costs is small change compared to the many billions of euro being spent over and above what is being raised in taxes.

      As for the changes, all of them seem positive – especially the publishing of minority judgements as happens in many other jurisdictions. As for your above point, it would surely encourage Michael D or other Presidents to use their power carefully and frame well considered arguments. How can the Supreme Court be expected to rule on something if there is no factual evidence presented to them?

      Reply
    • The waste applies in so far as they should have sat down last year and considered ALL of the consitiutional reforms they wanted to address relating to the judiciary and had one referendum to deal with all four issues. If this referendum goes ahead next year that will mean that we, the state, will have spent 100million euros on something that could have cost just 50.

      As for the last Treaty, given that the outcome would effect every person on this island for the next couple of generations, we had every right to have our say, much to the disgust of this administration. Had Michael D not stepped in and made the promise that he did, chances are it would never have been held. Which is why that particular piece of the constituion WONT change.

      Reply
  • I dont believe GOD has anything to with the system..common sense and evidence is the way to go cos i have seen garda swearing on the oath(bible) and lying to the judge…

    Reply

Add New Comment