Ronan Kennedy and Others v Courts Services

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Birmingham
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 259
• Court: High Court
• Date: 11 April 2014

[2014] IEHC 259

THE HIGH COURT

[No 587 J.R./2011]

Kennedy & Ors v Courts Services

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACTS 1961 TO 1968 AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACTS 1924 TO 1959 AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS SERVICES ACT 1998

BETWEEN

RONAN KENNEDY, IAN FLYNN, VINCENT MCCORMACK, PAUL KINGSTON, JOHN G. O'DONNELL AND PHILIP ENGLISH

APPLICANTS

AND

THE COURTS SERVICES

RESPONDENT

COURTS SERVICE ACT 1998 S5

COURTS SERVICE ACT 1998 S2

COURTS SERVICE ACT 1998 S6(1)

COURTS SERVICE ACT 1998 S6(2)

COURTS SERVICE ACT 1998 S13(2)(A)

EDUCATION ACT 1998 S2

EDUCATION ACT 1998 S6

EDUCATION ACT 1998 S7

SINNOTT v MIN FOR EDUCATION & ORS 2001 2 IR 545

EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000

COURTS SERVICE ACT 1998 S6(2)(J)

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1953 S26

BRADY & ORS v CAVAN CO COUNCIL 1999 4 IR 99 2000 1 ILRM 81 1999/3/445

KING & GOFF, STATE v MIN FOR JUSTICE 1984 IR 169

KEANE v MIN FOR JUSTICE 1994 3 IR 347 1994/4/1151

HOEY & MATTHEWS v MIN FOR JUSTICE 1994 3 IR 329 1994 1 ILRM 334 1993/12/3714

COURTHOUSES (PROVISION & MAINTENANCE) ACT 1935

Courts Services – Duty to maintain courthouses – Statutory Obligation – Courts Services act 1991 – Declaration – Solicitors – Management of Court Facilities – Resources

The facts of this case involved the applicants, solicitors in practice in Tipperary town and members of the Tipperary Bar, seeking a declaration that the respondent, the Courts Service, were in breach of a Statutory Obligation. In particular the applicants sought a declaration that the Courts were in breach of their to duty to provide, manage and maintain court buildings under s. 5 of the Courts Services act 1991. More particularly a declaration was sought that the respondent was in breach of its statutory obligation to provide an adequate and suitable courthouse in Tipperary towns. The issue was brought before Birmingham J. in the High Court.

Birmingham J. analyzed the statutory provisions regarding the courts duties and obligations regarding facilities. Birmingham J. accepted that the Courts Service had a duty to provide, manage and maintain court services and to provide facilities for users of the courts. However, found difficulty accepting the suggestion that there is a statutory duty to provide particular facilities at particular locations. Birmingham J suggested that the existence of a specific duty in relation to a specific venue would not sit easily with the obligation imposed on the Courts Service to secure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of resources. Birmingham J. concluded that the effect of making the declarations sought would be to prioritise Tipperary town and Tipperary courthouse to the disadvantage of other venues in Tipperary and further a field. After drawing distinctions between this case and other cases such as The State (The Prosecution of Keane and Goff) v. Minister for Justice [1984] I.R. 189 Birmingham J. held that the court had no option but to decline to grant the declarations sought.

1 1. In this case the applicants are all solicitors in practice in Tipperary town and members of the Tipperary Bar Association. In these proceedings, the applicants are seeking a declaration that the respondent, the Courts Service, is in breach of its duty to provide, manage and maintain court buildings under s. 5 of the Courts Services act 1991. More particularly a declaration is sought that the respondent is in breach of its statutory obligation to provide an adequate and suitable courthouse in Tipperary towns.

2 2. I should add that the statement of grounds had indicated that the applicants were seeking an order of mandamus directing the respondent, Courts Services, to provide, manage and maintain an adequate and suitable courthouse. Not surprisingly, the notice of opposition and the written submissions on behalf of the respondent focused to a significant extent on the inappropriateness of mandamus as a remedy. However, counsel for the applicants has made clear that his interest is in obtaining suitable declarations and the application for an order of mandamus has not been pressed.

3 3. The factual background to the present proceedings is that Tipperary courthouse was constructed in 1841. Cases have been heard there since its construction until November 2010. In recent years, Tipperary courthouse has hosted sittings of both the District Court and the Circuit Court, there were two sittings of the District Court per month as well as special sittings from time to time. While the Circuit Court sat in Tipperary courthouse for three or four weeks per year. The courthouse, it may be noted, is in the ownership of South Tipperary County Council.

4 4. Notwithstanding that the courthouse is a protected structure it has fallen into a state of disrepair leading to its closure in November 2010. Since then, sittings of the District Court have been held in a local theatre, while Circuit Court matters are now dealt with in Clonnel. Clonmel is approximately 25 miles from Tipperary town.

5 5. Over many years the developing state of disrepair has been the subject of concern to local members of the legal profession. Representations were made to the respondent and local public representatives were actively involved with the issue, in November 2010, part of the ceiling collapsed, bringing a halt to further court sittings.

6 6. On the 5 ^th January, 2011, Dr. Martin Manseragh, then Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works, issued a press release announcing that following his intervention, at the request of the courts service, and with the assistance of the Department of Justice and Law Reform urgent repairs were to be carried out early in the new year to the ceiling a roof of Tipperary courthouse.

7 7. The press release referred to the fact that the courthouse had been listed for work in 2009, but that the constrained budget of the Courts Service and its other priorities had unfortunately led to the indefinite postponement of the works.

8 8. Notwithstanding the announcement, no such works have been carried out and the courthouse remains closed. In a letter dated the 14 ^th June, 2011, to the first named applicant, the then Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that the Courts Service was not in a position to allocate funding for the extensive remedial works necessary for the courthouse in Tipperary. However, in view of the historic nature of the building, the Department had agreed to fund some limited repair work by the Office...