Attended by The Minister for Justice, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, and The Chief Justice of Ireland
To formally mark the centenary of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, and the 100-year anniversary of the establishment of the Irish Courts the Chief Justice today hosted a commemorative ceremony in the Four Courts
The Chief Justice said at the event;
- The independence of the judiciary does not mean the isolation of the judiciary and should not mean the neglect, even if benign, of the court system.
- An independent court system needs to be reinforced and defended from challenges, whether violent and strident, or subtle and insidious.
- A continued momentum in modernisation and increased judicial resources is needed.
- The Supreme Court is to be consistently broadcast - planning is underway to start later this year.
- Exploring the need for a dedicated modern Supreme Court and Courts administrative structure - as the Four Courts are beyond bursting point.
Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell said today that the renovation of the Four Courts after the civil War, echoed the changes made to Irelands Courts system.
When the new courts in Ireland were opened on the 11th of June, 1924, Hugh Kennedy, the new Chief Justice said:-
“This is surely a precious moment - the moment when the silence of the Gael in the courts of law is broken. The moment when Irish courts are thrown open to administer justice according to laws made in Ireland by free Irish citizens.”
The Chief justice said that was organised in terms of physical work to renovating the Four Courts, echoed what was being done in the court system. The architect took the best of this building, discarded any features which no longer served their purpose, and replaced them with contemporary features, so that the building became not a monument to a colonial past, but a functioning courthouse for an independent future.
This process mirrored an evolution, and a radical restructuring of the legal system, which retained those aspects of the common law system which were thought useful, quietly jettisoned others, and introduced innovations which would later be adopted in other jurisdictions and come to be regarded as normal.
He said that the “legal system until 1924 was a close copy of the legal system which applied in England and Wales at the time. The changes introduced by the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 were described in a book published that year by Gerald Horan K.C. as both “striking” and “drastic”. In simple terms he said: “The Act of 1924 has made a clean sweep of the old tribunals and set up an entirely new judiciary system”. Hugh Kennedy himself described the changes as a “shattering of landmarks”.
However, what is most striking is what is not said in the 1924 Act: no reference whatsoever is made to the right of appeal to the Privy Council (in London). That remained in place by virtue of the Anglo-Irish Treaty but was quietly and tellingly ignored in the Act.
He said, “It is no exaggeration to describe these changes as a radical evolution, which were, at every point, directed towards an improvement of the court system reflecting an egalitarian and reforming impulse”.
Changes in the last century - might impress the founders of our courts
Chief Justice O’Donnell said that “the observer from 1924 would be struck by the difference in the judiciary and the legal professionals appearing in those courts, most notably in terms of gender balance.
They would also be astonished by the legal business that is now transacted outside court rooms in major law offices and they would be surprised, I think, by the extent to which cases are case managed in advanced: written submissions are provided for; time available for argument is limited; and of course, the availability now of video link and remote technology.
If they listened closely, they would, notice the extent to which the business of the court is taken up not just with criminal law, tort, contract and property disputes that they might recognise, but also with matters of public law, constitutional law, judicial review, asylum, European Arrest Warrants and environmental matters.
The Need for Change in our courts today
We should be willing to ask the same questions that are our predecessors were prepared to ask 100 years ago: what parts of this system are essential to a functioning legal system in a modern State, and what parts should be adapted, changed, or improved?
A legal system is central to any civilised modern society. At the core of any such legal system is a truly independent mechanism for the resolution of disputes in public in as efficient a way as possible, using relevant expertise and maintaining respect of the dignity of everyone involved.
No one looking around the world today should take that for granted or think that it is easy to achieve or, once achieved, can be easily maintained. An independent court system needs to be reinforced and defended from challenges, whether violent and strident, or subtle and insidious.
One thing from 1924 that we can jettison is the idea that a court system could be run, and justice delivered to the people of Ireland, simply by appointing judges, and allowing them to sit with a pencil and paper in increasingly ageing courthouses, relics of a colonial era dealing with an ever-increasing workload of growing complexity with limited and outdated resources.
The Judicial Planning Working Group (“JPWG”) was established in 2021. It delivered its report last year. The report recognised the fact that Ireland had the lowest number of judges per capita in Europe and had been historically under resourced for most of the 20th Century. It recommended the appointment of 44 judges before the end of 2024, and that additional judicial positions should be determined by a review in 2025 of the need for more judges up to 2028.
It also recommended a review and restructuring of the way in which the courts do business, a more planned approach to judicial appointments, and appropriate and enhanced resources to support the judiciary. I am very happy to acknowledge that the report was accepted by Government and has been implemented in part. Following the publication of the JPWG report
Addressing the backlogs created by the Covid-19 pandemic and reducing historic backlogs more generally is, however, only part of what is required.
What have we changed and achieved:
It is appropriate to acknowledge the significant institutional reforms that have been taken in relatively recent times to improve the system:
- the establishment of the Courts Service,
- a Judicial Council with a strong educational function as well as a disciplinary one,
- reform of the judicial appointments system,
- the establishment of a Court of Appeal,
- the consequent major reform of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
- the building of new courthouses across Ireland.
Changes Underway:
There has been significant investment in the Courts Service modernisation programme, which seeks to use new digital technology and modern ways of working to make access to justice easier and quicker to navigate for court users. This includes;
- technology-enabled courtrooms,
- a digital jury system,
- commencement of work on a unified case management system,
- a new digital desktop for staff and judges, and a new family law information resource.
Supreme Court to broadcast proceedings consistently;
Very recent technological developments in the Supreme Court include a new website, which has just gone live. We have also agreed, in principle, to run a pilot project commencing before the end of this year to consistently broadcast hearings in the Supreme Court.
Changes Needed - resources space to administer justice;
The Chief Justice said, “that we should be looking to do in the next century is to improve the conditions in which justice is administered in every courtroom. It is not simply a question of the number of cases disposed of – it is a question of how they are disposed of. That involves giving judges the time, space and resources to carry out their function in the best way possible, which in turn allows justice to be administered in an efficient way that is respectful of the dignity of the parties involved.
We should take this opportunity to try to put in place the foundations for the next century”.
I hope that the experience of the Judicial Planning Working Group can represent a step change in the approach to relationships between the courts and the other branches of government. The independence of the judiciary does not mean the isolation of the judiciary and should not mean the neglect, even if benign, of the court system.
The administration of justice performs a vital role in a modern state based on the rule of law – a model which is under increasing threat and which we should not take for granted. We all have a shared interest in the delivery of an efficient court system. This requires transparent and robust structures for engagement which respect and reinforce the separation of powers.
Need for a new Court building?
He said that, “a hundred years ago, this building was in ruins. When it was restored by 1932, it housed only eight judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and a few judges of the Circuit and District Court and ancillary offices and staff. The building is now required to hold nearly fifty judges, with a vastly increased workload and requirement for ancillary support staff who are scattered throughout the building and some adjoining buildings. The working conditions and supports fall well below what would be taken for granted in even a medium size law firm. This leads to inefficiency, loss of momentum, and an inability of judges and the team that supports the courts being able to collaborate in a way that the business of courts requires.
The building is now beyond bursting point and I hope it will be possible to identify a suitable premises to house a modern administrative office and a judicial office system for the 21st century, while preserving this building for its core historic function of hearing cases.
The Chief Justice pointed out that , “it is unusual, for example, in the modern world that a Supreme Court is not located in a dedicated building. There are advantages and pleasures to working in such an historic building, but doing so should not come at a sacrifice to support, facilities or efficiency.
This building will always be an important symbol for the administration of justice in Ireland and in my view that it should continue to be the place where the cases of most public importance are heard and decided in a calm, respectful, dignified and historic environment. But, just as in 1924, we have to make it work in a modern world”.