The West Cork Bar Association v Courts Service

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Noonan
• Judgment Date: 08 July 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 388
• Docket Number: [2014 No. 23 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 08 July 2016

THE WEST CORK BAR ASSOCIATION, COLETTE MCCARTHY, VERONICA NEVILLE, MARIA O'DONOVAN

AND

ANTHONY COOMEY, PAUL O'SULLIVAN

AND

LIAM CROWLEY

APPLICANTS

AND

THE COURTS SERVICE

RESPONDENT

[2016] IEHC 388

[2014 No. 23 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Practice & Procedures – Closure of Courthouse – S. 13 of the Courts Service Act 1998 – Statutory power – Scope of judicial review – Duty to give reasons

Facts: Following the proposed closure of the named Court House, the applicants sought an order to quash the decision made by the respondent approving the closure of the Courthouse. The applicants contended that respondent's decision contained errors of facts as regards the alleged the savings by the closure of the courthouse and that the respondent failed to provide any reason for its decision to close the Courthouse. The applicants also contended that that the respondent had no statutory power to close a functioning courthouse. The respondents contended that the decision of closure of court house was not amenable to judicial review The respondent also contended that it had no duty to give detailed reasons in support of its decisions and whatever reasons were given were adequate and any errors of fact that might have occurred were not material.

Mr. Justice Noonan set aside the decision of the respondent and remitted it back for reconsideration. The Court held that the closure of the courthouse was the breach of the constitutional right to access to justice of the applicants, which was a matter within the scope of judicial review. The Court held that different figures were given in relation to the savings gained by closure of courthouse out of which two must be wrong, which could result into a different outcome and must be considered as a grievous error. The Court held that refusal of a decision maker to give properly the reasons for its decision might amount to a ground for quashing it. The Court also held that a decision maker by refusing to give reasons for its decision would render it difficult to identify whether any substantial issue was raised so that it could be amenable to judicial review. The Court refused to grant an order of mandamus to the applicant to keep the courthouse open as it would mean compelling the respondent to obey the orders of the Court in a disorganized manner.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered the 8th day of July, 2016.

Introduction

1 This case concerns the proposed closure of Skibbereen Court House. The first applicant ('WCBA') is an unincorporated association of solicitors practising in the west Cork area and the second to seventh applicants are solicitors practising there. In these proceedings, the applicants challenge an order made by the respondent on 21st October, 2013, approving the closure of the Court House. The applicants seek to quash that decision.

Background facts

2 The respondent ('The Courts Service') was established by the provisions of the Courts Service Act 1998 ('the Act') which gives it responsibility, inter alia, for managing courthouses and court venues throughout the State. The respondent is funded entirely by the Exchequer and in the wake of the economic collapse which commenced in 2008, has seen very significant reductions in its budget. The respondent operates under a statutory imperative which requires it to have regard to the resources available and the need to secure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of such resources (s. 13(2)(a) of the Act).

3 Against this background, the Building Committee, a sub-committee of the Board of the Courts Service ('the Board'), at a meeting on 10th October, 2011, established a Venue Review Committee ('VRC'). The VRC's mandate was to carry out a review of all court venues throughout the State. The purpose of this review appears to have been to assist in the assessment of how economies and efficiencies could be introduced in regard to court venues in the light of the budgetary constraints imposed. The VRC met on a number of occasions and presented a draft report to the Building Committee on 17th April, 2012. The draft report was reviewed by the Building Committee on that date and again 12th June, 2012, and as a result a revised report was prepared by the VRC which was considered by the Building Committee on 25th June, 2012. The VRC report embodied a proposed methodology for identifying court venues which might be considered for closure, there being 41 such throughout the State.

4 It proposed a grading or marking system for each venue and a consultation and review process to be followed in respect of each court venue proposed for closure. Eight criteria were identified as appropriate for assessment and points were allocated under each criterion with a possible total of 52 being available. It was proposed that any venue scoring 23 points or less should be considered for a more detailed evaluation. Although Bantry, Bandon and Macroom all received less than 23 points, it was felt that they should be omitted from more detailed evaluation for geographical and logistic reasons. Other venues in west Cork scoring 23 points or less included Kinsale, Clonakilty and Skibbereen. The Building Committee recommended that the Board approve the VRC report and the Board duly did so at its meeting on the 25th June, 2012.

5 On 3rd September, 2012, the Courts Service wrote to WCBA enclosing a copy of the methodology for court venue review setting out the criteria and the points awarded. The letter indicated that the Courts Service would now proceed with a detailed evaluation of each venue identified for potential closure and would engage in a local consultation process with local court users and other stakeholders. The letter concluded by inviting comments or contributions. WCBA responded by letter of 11th October, 2012, expressing concern over the prospect of further court closures in the area. This was followed by a detailed written submission on 26th October, 2012. On 22nd November, 2012, the Courts Service wrote to WCBA saying that there may have been a misunderstanding that Skibbereen and Clonakilty were to be closed into Cork whereas in fact the proposal was for the business from Skibbereen to be transferred to Bantry. WCBA responded on 11th December, 2012, stating that there had been no misunderstanding and in fact the original proposal had been to close Skibbereen into Cork rather than Bantry.

6 On 24th January, 2013, WCBA furnished an addendum submission directed towards the closure of Skibbereen into Bantry rather than Cork. Following the receipt of all relevant submissions from interested parties, the Building Committee met on 16th May, 2013, and decided to recommend closure of the Skibbereen Court House. On 17th May, 2013, WCBA wrote to the Courts Service drawing attention to the impending increase in the jurisdiction of the District Court which it was felt would impact on the business transacted in Skibbereen Court House significantly. On 21st May, 2013, the Courts Service wrote to WCBA informing it of the Building Committee's decision to recommend closure of the Courthouse.

7 On an unspecified date in May, 2013, but presumably prior to the meeting of the Building Committee on 16th May, 2013, a document entitled 'Venue Review West Cork Venues' designated report 9/2013 was prepared by Mr. John Coyle, head of Circuit and District Court Operations for the Courts Service. This report analysed the case for closing the three venues in question and this analysis included a consideration of the cost saving involved. In that regard, the report said in relation to Skibbereen:

'The analysis examined the court profile for a three month period (six court sittings) and then extrapolated the outputs from the analysis over a twelve month period. The total saving for the Courts Service would amount to €11,643 while the total cross justice Exchequer saving would amount to €15,783 if the District Court area of Skibbereen were amalgamated with the District Court area of Clonakilty.'

8 The higher figure quoted appears to have been taken from an earlier internal Courts Service document entitled 'Cost Analysis Report – Closure of Skibbereen' which is dated simply 2012 and states on the final page that the net saving to the Exchequer of closing Skibbereen will amount to an estimated €15,783 over twelve months. Report 9/2013 had a number of appendices attached to it. Appendix A, entitled 'West Cork Venue Review' contains what is described as a detailed assessment and business case prepared by Mr. Coyle in respect of the three venues including Skibbereen. The following is stated at para. 6.2 of that document:

'Indicative figures (2011 figures) produced by Circuit and District Operations Directorate in respect of a decision, if taken, to move the Skibbereen Court sittings to Bantry or Clonakilty, which looked at the impact of such a move on T&S costs for the Gardaí, Courts Service and Legal Aid as well as looking at the maintenance savings enclosing the venue, indicate a possible overall net saving €1.3k per annum if the court sitting moved to Bantry and a net saving of €12.2k if the sittings moved to Clonakilty. Given that there would be costs associated with additional sittings in Bantry and / or Clonakilty it is estimated that the overall net saving would be in the region of €1k per annum if the court moved to Bantry.

Again an analysis of cost from the same source under the same criteria if the venue closed into Clonakilty show a potential net saving of in excess of €12k per annum less the cost of the additional sittings in Clonakilty estimated at €4k per annum.'

Thus this report was estimating a net saving of €8,000 per annum although it does not specify whether this is an Exchequer or a Courts Service saving.

9 Appendix B attached to report 9/2013 comprises a document entitled 'Review of West Cork Venues' and is stated to be comments on the...