Circuit Court day out

Shelflife

This week I had the joy of going to the circuit court as a witness.

Summons served a few weeks ago and told to be there at 10.30.

I arranged cover and time off from work and off i went to court. I wandered in and had to ask twice at "information" for help as to were to go and eventually got the right courtroom.

I searched for and found the Garda dealing with the case and straight away he told me that I wasnt needed as they were awaiting a report on the defendant.

Now 6 witnesses turned up on foot of summons and we all arranged time off only to be told that we werent needed, I sat for a while to observe the goings on and found that quiet a number of cases were dealt with (put off) and all the participants scuffled out of court with their time wasted.

Is this the norm that people are expected to turn up when clearly the case is never going ahead on that day ?

The first hour of court was dealing with housekeeping that IMO should all have been done before the day and the participants informed as to what was going on.

So effectively the Judge ruled on one mickey mouse licencing case (why that has to go to the circuit court at all is beyond me) in the first hour before he left the courtroom.

As someone who rarely frequents a courtroom I found it very inefficient and not at all user friendly for someone who is not used to it, only for I found the Guard at the beginning I could have spent the whole morning wondering what was going on.

Is this the norm ?

Pat Mustard

If you are a witness for the State, ask the Garda for the details of the State solicitor. When you have the details, ring that office for an explanation and confirmation that you will be kept informed in future.

NUTLEY BOY

OP, you have just described a typical day.

Exiled1

Had the dubious pleasure of serving on a jury recently. I arrived early and can concur with other posters.... the level of inefficiency is mind boggling. It is only matched by the plethora of excuses offered by everybody at every turn in what seems a concerted effort to keep a lucrative industry/profession in clover!! All in the name of 'justice'.

cml387

Exactly as above in my experience. Maybe to people within the legal profession it makes sense, but to an outsider it just looks like a piece of poor theatre where gardai, solicitors, barristers judges and defendents all know their lines and parts they have to play and just go through the motions.
While the taxpayer picks up the tab of course.

hullaballoo

Barristers don't become barristers for the money. Most of us don't get paid for most of the work we do. Only the very few at the top of the profession actually make anything that would be regarded as decent money. The rest of us count ourselves lucky to be paid anything at the conclusion of a case when we do get paid. The reality is that the protectionism you imagine doesn't exist. It is probably the least secure profession in the country. Most other self-employed people here can at least sue if they are unpaid after completing work.

If you are talking about criminal trials, the lawyers present for all the cases that were adjourned or not dealt with won't get paid at all, or if they do, it's a pittance that doesn't cover your travel.

The lion's share of the work we do, we don't even bill for it because the fee structures are so daft that we are not able to. Most people would be very surprised to see what barristers do and don't charge for versus the work they do. Obviously, it's the exceptions to these general observations who make the headlines but the reality is vastly different.

The Courts are inefficient, yes, but it is just as frustrating for those of us who work in them as it is for those who are required to attend. Even more so if you accept that we deal with it every day of our working lives. Changes are certainly needed but because it's politically popular to blame it on the lawyers, that's where the blame is put.

From the inside, the inefficiencies are blatant and the factors that drive up costs are certainly nothing to do with the legal professionals involved who, despite what people seem happy to think, are looking forward to a quick conclusion to every case they deal with so that they can get paid (hopefully!)

johnnyskeleton

Exiled1 wrote: »

Had the dubious pleasure of serving on a jury recently. I arrived early and can concur with other posters.... the level of inefficiency is mind boggling. It is only matched by the plethora of excuses offered by everybody at every turn in what seems a concerted effort to keep a lucrative industry/profession in clover!! All in the name of 'justice'.

Why do people always assume that its the lawyers colluding to earn more money for themselves? Lawyers get paid when cases are run and concluded, not when they are put back for a year or more.

If you go to a court that doesnt involve large numbers of people to be involved e.g. cases that are dealt with by affidavit and legal submission, you wont find very many adjournments.

In a criminal trial there can be tens to hundreds of witnesses, 12 jurors and a variety of disclosed statements etc. Invariably when there is an adjournment it is because a witness wont be available, disclosure is outstanding etc. So with so many moving parts no wonder things dont run smoothly.

But blaming the lawyers is an old trick. Kinda like the insuranc federation who keep saying higher premiums are due to higher legal fees, despite unchallenged evidence from PIAB, the courts services and the law society to show that the number of awards has been constant/in decline and legal fees have decreased. Just dont look to see what massive losses the insurance companies have taken on their investment side!

Shelflife

Not blaming the lawyers , I had a good chat with a barrister years ago and it was very revealing, more or less said that unless you can afford not not to earn money for a few years then you would have to stay away from it.

I just found the set up a joke tbh, for Joe Soap to walk in and find the right courtroom , find the person dealing with the case etc is very user unfriendly and for those not used to the settings it can be an intimidating place.

In my case, the incident happened 14 months ago, all witnesses were there under summons and we were good to go except for a report that 14 months later still wasnt done.

We could all have been emailed or rang the day before when it was clear that this report was needed and six peoples mornings wouldnt have been wasted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Exiled1 wrote: »

Had the dubious pleasure of serving on a jury recently. I arrived early and can concur with other posters.... the level of inefficiency is mind boggling. It is only matched by the plethora of excuses offered by everybody at every turn in what seems a concerted effort to keep a lucrative industry/profession in clover!! All in the name of 'justice'.

No barrister or solicitor get paid anything from legal aid for adjournments in circuit criminal court.

maximum12

I'll never do jury service or be a witness. Not blaming any specific profession but the system has no respect for people's time. And as it's so disorganized I'll never get my comeuppance.

hullaballoo

Shelflife wrote: »

Not blaming the lawyers , I had a good chat with a barrister years ago and it was very revealing, more or less said that unless you can afford not not to earn money for a few years then you would have to stay away from it.

I just found the set up a joke tbh, for Joe Soap to walk in and find the right courtroom , find the person dealing with the case etc is very user unfriendly and for those not used to the settings it can be an intimidating place.

In my case, the incident happened 14 months ago, all witnesses were there under summons and we were good to go except for a report that 14 months later still wasnt done.

We could all have been emailed or rang the day before when it was clear that this report was needed and six peoples mornings wouldnt have been wasted.

You are right and the above replies were prompted by others who were looking to blame this on the legal profession and the imagined conspiracy to keep things the way they are.

If I thought it was possible, I'd encourage the thread to continue on the point that the system is broken, full of inefficiencies and needs to be streamlined but people can't help themselves, and this thread will inevitably end up with masses of people with misdirecting their criticism and anger at lawyers.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Shelflife

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cheers Fred , but I'm self employed and can't show a loss of income so therefore can't claim anything. More pissed off that a modicum of common sense and curtesy could easily ensure that our time wasn't wasted.

It just means that people won't be as keen to make statements etc if they are going to be messed around in this way.

Peregrinus

Exiled1 wrote: »

Had the dubious pleasure of serving on a jury recently. I arrived early and can concur with other posters.... the level of inefficiency is mind boggling. It is only matched by the plethora of excuses offered by everybody at every turn in what seems a concerted effort to keep a lucrative industry/profession in clover!! All in the name of 'justice'.

Not at all. The whole point of the system is to ensure that the judge's time is used efficiently - that he is constantly busy and, as soon as one matter is dealt with, the next is ready to come on. Hence lawyers, witnesses, etc attend on the basis that they might be needed. So it's inefficient for the lawyers and the witnesses, but highly efficient for the judges and the court staff, who are the ones who are paid by the taxpayer.

In short; this is done to keep your taxes down, not to keep lawyers in fees.

Pat Mustard

Peregrinus wrote: »

In short; this is done to keep your taxes down

I've often seen many Gardai sitting around in court, waiting for various cases to get on. Sometimes I wonder if it would be more efficient to employ more judges, if for no other reason than to free up Garda time.

I suppose that one would need the relevant figures regarding Garda time in court, in order to know.

maximum12

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not at all. The whole point of the system is to ensure that the judge's time is used efficiently - that he is constantly busy and, as soon as one matter is dealt with, the next is ready to come on.

So true. I was in the high court one afternoon for a couple of hours waiting for a commercial case to be dealt with. There was about 50 or 60 people, (barristers, solicitors, public) in the court room buzzing around while the "Queen bee" sat at the top. What was very impressive was how the judge could quickly process the information from a relentless line of commercial cases, often quite technical in nature but at any one time 95% of people there were waiting their turn.

December2012

Agree that we could do with more judges

Pat Mustard

The recent government U-turn indicates that we will not be getting new judges, at the moment.
Link

Last week, Independent sources told The Irish Times they would not consent to further judicial appointments being made by the cabinet until a new system for appointing judges was approved by the Dáil.

However, The Irish Times understands Independent minister Shane Ross has told colleagues he has an agreement with Fine Gael that there will be no further judges appointed until the legislation is in place.

hullaballoo

What's in the Bill?

Carawaystick

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I've often seen many Gardai sitting around in court, waiting for various cases to get on. Sometimes I wonder if it would be more efficient to employ more judges, if for no other reason than to free up Garda time.

I suppose that one would need the relevant figures regarding Garda time in court, in order to know.

You wouldn't want to depend on the courts service to publish that data, seeing as how they can't get judges to publish hc/ac/sc judgements on time...

Pat Mustard

hullaballoo wrote: »

What's in the Bill?

I haven't checked this in any detail but have a look to see if the information is here.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2014/914/b914d-memo.pdf

hullaballoo

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I haven't checked this in any detail but have a look to see if the information is here.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2014/914/b914d-memo.pdf

What do you think I was trying to avoid by asking the question here? :pac:

Pat Mustard

Carawaystick wrote: »

You wouldn't want to depend on the courts service to publish that data, seeing as how they can't get judges to publish hc/ac/sc judgements on time...

I'd say that the courts wouldn't have that information. The Gardai may or may not have it.

It would be in the interest of the Department of Justice to look for it.