The experience of Irish court users is “poor”, “costly” and “lengthy” and court information technology and data systems are “not fit for purpose”, according to an independent report commissioned by the Department of Justice.
“Operations are dated, complex and inefficient,” the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organisation, said in its report for the Department of Justice, published on Friday alongside another report from the Judicial Planning Working Group (JPWG), comprising senior public servants.
Both reports were based on an in-depth assessment of judicial need here and have suggested the State may need up to 108 additional judges over the next five years.
Modernisation programme
They linked the bulk of any such extra appointments to an overhaul of court and judicial working practices for which they recommended that the Courts Service, already embarked on a modernisation programme including a digital strategy, should be adequately funded.
Cutting off family members: ‘It had never occurred to me that you could grieve somebody who was still alive’
The bird-shaped obsession that drives James Crombie, one of Ireland’s best sports photographers
The Dublin riots, one year on: ‘I know what happened doesn’t represent Irish people’
The week in US politics: Gaetz fiasco shows Trump he won’t get everything his way
Minister for Justice Simon Harris told a conference of judges and lawyers in Dublin on Friday the Government will appoint 24 additional judges this year. And subject to review and assessment of progress towards change, possibly another 20 next year which would increase judicial numbers from 173 to 217.
The appointment of the extra 24 judges will cost some €15 million but, according to the Minister and the reports, the appointments are necessary to address case backlogs, particularly affecting criminal and family law lists, and to progress reform and the Government’s prioritisation of new specialist family courts and a new environmental/planning court.
The JPWG recommendations, if implemented, will amount to the “most significant reform” of the courts in the last century, said the Minister.
Both reports noted stark variations in waiting times for domestic violence applications in the District Courts in 2021, ranging from a same-day hearing in Dublin and speedy hearings in 14 other districts, including Athlone, Castlebar and Clonakilty, up to a 26-week wait for a hearing in Nenagh.
The 2021 figures indicated applications for maintenance/guardianship would get almost a next-day hearing in Carrick-on-Shannon and Sligo District Courts but faced a wait of up to 32 weeks in Naas.
The reforms proposed by the JPWG include: five-day weeks across all court jurisdictions; longer daily court sittings; shorter court vacations; more use of quasi-judicial officers and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; and better case management, IT and data collection/management systems.
The OECD suggested a likely need for an extra 36-108 judges here as well as more support staff, streamlined court operations and long-term planning.
The Irish judicial system continues to be seen as “costly” and many cases take a long time to be decided here, it said.
The current information communications technology architecture is “not fit for purpose, putting day to day court business at risk, limiting access to data and reducing governance and management effectiveness”, it said.
Dispute resolution
Procedural, operational and organisational improvements and investment to modernise case management and IT infrastructure could make the courts more efficient and reduce the number of extra judges required, it added.
The OECD suggested online dispute resolution could be used for some District Court matters, such as licensing and simple road traffic cases not involving injuries.
In light of pressures to improve diversity among the judiciary, the OECD said it may be time to look again at the oath judges must swear when taking up office. The oath, which refers to “Almighty God”, may deter some applicants, it said.
Noting most judges were formerly barristers, it said there should be a better assessment of applications for judicial vacancies to establish why some groups appear to succeed “disproportionately often”, who may be missing among applications, and why that is so.
