Supreme Court Waiting time

KWAG2019

I see article on RTE saying wait times for SC hearing are lowest in history of state. A great piece of effective reform showing what can be done when the will is there. Credit where credit is due.

Claw Hammer

Up till about 10 years ago there were 8 Supreme Court judges and there was no Court of Appeal. Supreme Court judges also sat on the Court of Criminal Appeal. As a result the Supreme Court, only once or twice sat in two divisions. Now there are 15 judges of the Court of Appeal with the ability to sit in up to 5 divisions. The Supreme Court now chooses which cases it will hear and still has 9 judges and no longer has to send judges to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is very easy to clear a backlog problem when there are three times as many judges.

Peregrinus

. . . which is precisely the effective reform that KWAG points to.

KWAG2019

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Up till about 10 years ago there were 8 Supreme Court judges and there was no Court of Appeal. Supreme Court judges also sat on the Court of Criminal Appeal. As a result the Supreme Court, only once or twice sat in two divisions. Now there are 15 judges of the Court of Appeal with the ability to sit in up to 5 divisions. The Supreme Court now chooses which cases it will hear and still has 9 judges and no longer has to send judges to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is very easy to clear a backlog problem when there are three times as many judges.

And there is the solution to backlogs: you increase the capacity of the system or you find a mechanism to reduce supply. I’m glad that the former was taken. I kept saying it: law is too important to be left to the lawyers.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . which is precisely the effective reform that KWAG points to.

I am not sure eactly what reform he as pointing to. previously the dely happend after a High Court hearig finished, it could take years to get through the Supreme court. Now after the High Court comes the Court of Appeal. the Supreme Court is simply not doing the work it was before but for many litigants the issue is how many cases heard by the High Court are waiting in the Court of Appeal and for how long. the Court of Appeal has taken over the vast bulk of the work of the Supreme Court so comparisons wit the backlogs of the old days and the lack of a current backlog are not comparing like with like.

KWAG2019

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I am not sure eactly what reform he as pointing to. previously the dely happend after a High Court hearig finished, it could take years to get through the Supreme court. Now after the High Court comes the Court of Appeal. the Supreme Court is simply not doing the work it was before but for many litigants the issue is how many cases heard by the High Court are waiting in the Court of Appeal and for how long. the Court of Appeal has taken over the vast bulk of the work of the Supreme Court so comparisons wit the backlogs of the old days and the lack of a current backlog are not comparing like with like.

What is the delay to the Court of Appeal? Is it just a new bottleneck?

GM228

KWAG2019 wrote: »

What is the delay to the Court of Appeal? Is it just a new bottleneck?

Remember the Court of Appeal replaced the Court of Criminal Appeal. Previously the CCA only heard criminal appeals (obviously), but, now the CA hears both criminal and civil appeals (civil used to go direct the the SC).

So now the SC has a reduced workload with loosing the first instance civil appeals whilst the CA has a higher workload than the CCA it replaced by gaining those appeals