Plans for the closure of principal courthouses in the Dublin area and a restructuring of services have led to intense disagreement between members of the legal profession and the Courts Service. On one hand, the Law Society says the proposed changes could lead to the collapse of criminal trials while the Courts Service maintains that, without reform, existing services will be cut and waiting times will lengthen.
The closure of a local hospital, a garda station or a courthouse is guaranteed to generate protest. But a rationalisation of traditional State services and administrative structures must reflect modern communications and deliver cost efficiencies. The problem arises in striking a balance between service to the citizen and cost to the State. Centralisation can ease administrative problems, but it may be counterproductive if citizens are alienated by a system focused on efficiency and output.
During the past four years, 77 courthouses in towns and villages have closed as the Courts Service cut costs and rationalised services. Local solicitors objected. They had a vested interest. Cases would take longer and, like their clients, they would have to travel greater distances. But if they didn’t object, who would? There is much to recommend small district courts. Judges have time to listen carefully to distressed defendants and mitigating circumstances are taken into account. Justice is local. Contrast that with the productivity-driven mincing machines that have become a feature in Dublin. Is further intensification required?
Commenting on the work of district courts last year, where 60 per cent of all cases were traffic related and there was an 80 per cent increase in committal orders for the non-payment of debt, Chief Justice Mrs Susan Denham remarked that the cases mirrored an ever-changing society and this required a flexible and creative approach by the Courts Service and the judiciary. That flexibility should be extended to the legal profession and the best interests of their clients.