Most people, when they think of the Supreme Court (if they ever do), recall headline-grabbing stories like the X Case, where the Court had to decide on the right of a 14-year old girl to travel abroad for an abortion.
But this, the highest court in the State, has much more to do than handle political dynamite like that lit by the X Case. It has a constitutional obligation to consider Bills referred to it by the President to test their constitutionality. Its decision is final.
It also comes to public attention when the State appears to infringe on a person's constitutional rights, and that person appeals first to the High Court and, if unsuccessful there, to the Supreme Court to have those rights vindicated. Equally, the State may appeal a High Court decision to the Supreme Court.
But the court does a lot more than that and, as the next century approaches, is likely to see both the volume and the complexity of its work greatly increased.
One of the big changes in the Supreme Court in the next century will be a much greater need for specialisation. One barrister commented that 20 years ago most people entering the profession did a bit of everything, and that was also true of judges. Because of the increase in the volume and complexity of litigation, this can no longer be the case, and it will be necessary for Supreme Court judges to be specialists in at least one area of law.
Whole new areas of law are opening up, and existing areas are growing in complexity. Areas like licensing, copyright, development, planning and the environment are increasingly being tested in the courts. And, because they frequently involve new issues, they are likely to be appealed and end up in the Supreme Court.
"If things are valuable people are likely to fight over them," said a senior counsel. This was graphically illustrated in the recent challenge to the issuing of the third mobile phone licence, where Ms Justice Laffoy found the procedures were biased. When one considers that Esat, the company which got the second licence, has recently been valued at about £1 billion, it is obvious why a disappointed bidder might go to court.
The Internet poses whole new areas relating to copyright and defamation, none of which have yet been tested in the Irish courts, but it can only be a matter of time before they are. Much of this is also likely to be regulated by European law, so the Supreme Court will require expertise in this area.
As we become ever more successful participants in the global economy, pressures will emerge from the untrammelled and uncontrolled development, often with implications for Irish identity, society, culture and the environment. There will be tensions between, for example, certain types of industrial development in rural Ireland and the environment; between the need for housing and the need for non-commercial cultural and leisure facilities. Who is to decide between these two interests? Increasingly people are putting their faith in the courts to do so.
None of this means that the kind of issues which made headlines for the Supreme Court in the 1980s and 1990s will go away. Medical, and especially reproductive, technology is throwing up a whole raft of ethical and legal problems for which we have, as yet, no legislation. It can only be a matter of time before some of them end up in the courts. The existing conflict between the law, as laid down by the Supreme Court judgment in the X Case, and what is possible under the Medical Council ethical guidelines on abortion, could well generate further court actions.
There has also been a growing tendency for people to assert their rights under the Constitution. Children with handicaps have sought to vindicate their rights to an education; those with social problems have sought appropriate accommodation and treatment.
All this means that the Supreme Court will face many new challenges in the coming years. There is some anxiety among lawyers about whether it will be able to rise to them.
Coincidentally, the Government has the opportunity to almost remake the Supreme Court within the next few years. In the next six months alone four of its eight members will retire. These are Mr Justice Lynch, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton and, before the summer, Mr Justice Barrington and Mr Justice Barron. So four new appointments are imminent.
Of the remaining four members Mr Justice Keane and Mr Justice Murphy will retire within the next five years.
Mr Justice Morris, as President of the High Court, is an ex officio member, and he too is due to retire within the next few years, leaving vacant another senior judicial appointment.
The most pressing appointment is a new Chief Justice, due in January. The Government will have to decide between appointing one of the most senior members of the judiciary, who will not be able to serve a full seven-year term, or one of the two younger members of the Supreme Court, Mr Justice John Murray and Ms Justice Susan Denham.
However, perhaps more important will be ensuring that the balance is right between the areas of expertise and specialisation needed in the Supreme Court of the 21st century.
Legal professionals are particularly concerned that the new Supreme Court should have a high level of intellectual rigour and legal ability. They point out that, if Ireland is to attract international businesses, they must be sure that they will receive a consistently high quality of service from the courts, which will be making decisions worth many millions of pounds.
All these considerations - along with those of political, religious and gender balance - will be on the collective mind of the Government, including the Attorney General, when it comes to make its choices for the Supreme Court in the year 2000 and beyond.