DOCSLIB.ORG

To Manage the Courts, Support the Judiciary and Provide a High-Quality and Professional Service to All the Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To Manage the Courts, Support the Judiciary and Provide a High-Quality and Professional Service to All the Courts THE COURTS SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2000 The Courts Service The effective operation of the courts system is a critical element of the well-being of any society. Courts, by virtue of their role, have a significant impact on lives and welfare. Their effectiveness is therefore of considerable importance. Effectiveness is not influenced solely by the manner in which cases are dealt with by judges in the courtroom environment, but also by the administrative and institutional framework which exists to support and facilitate the operation of the courts. In Ireland, this framework is provided by the Courts Service, which was established on 9 November, 1999 following on from the enactment of the Courts Service Act, 1998. Mission Statement To manage the courts, support the judiciary and provide a high-quality and professional service to all the courts 1 THE COURTS SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2000 The Courts Service The effective operation of the courts system is a critical element of the well-being of any society. Courts, by virtue of their role, have a significant impact on lives and welfare. Their effectiveness is therefore of considerable importance. Effectiveness is not influenced solely by the manner in which cases are dealt with by judges in the courtroom environment, but also by the administrative and institutional framework which exists to support and facilitate the operation of the courts. In Ireland, this framework is provided by the Courts Service, which was established on 9 November, 1999 following on from the enactment of the Courts Service Act, 1998. Mission Statement To manage the courts, support the judiciary and provide a high-quality and professional service to all the courts 1 THE COURTS SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2000 Foreword by the Chief Justice I am very pleased to write this foreword for this, The information contained in this Report, the first Annual Report of the Courts Service. in addition to providing information to the public about the work of the courts, Even though I am always aware of the amount also provides much information and of work and effort which goes into the operation statistics which will be of considerable of our courts it is at times such as the publication assistance to the Board of the Service of Reports that I am reminded of the magnitude in fulfilling its policy role for the future of the tasks undertaken by both my judicial development of the Service and to those who work in the Service. It will also be of colleagues and the staff of the Courts Service. considerable interest and benefit to judges, staff and practitioners. This first Annual Report provides an overview of the modernisation programme At a time when there is often criticism of which the Courts Service Board and staff delays in implementing change one can only have undertaken in our first year of be impressed by the speed with which the existence. In addition to the considerable new Courts Service was converted from amount of preparatory work involved in the a proposal to reality. The establishment establishment of the Service, it is clear from of an independent agency to manage the reading the Report that impressive progress courts was recommended in the first Report has been made in developing the of the Working Group on a Courts modernisation programme envisaged Commission which was published in April, by the several Reports of the Working 1996. The legislation, the Courts Service Group on a Courts Commission. Much Act, 1998, was passed by the Oireachtas in of the agenda of work for the new Service April, 1998. A Courts Service Transitional was set out in those Reports and I am (Planning) Board was established in May, pleased that much progress has been made 1998. The functions of the Transitional on virtually all of the issues identified Board were to make the necessary by the Working Group. One of the deficits preparations for the formal establishment identified by the Working Group was the of the new Service and to appoint a Chief absence of Annual Reports and statistical Executive Officer Designate. The Chief information about the work of the courts. Executive Officer was appointed in January, I am very pleased that this is now being 1999 and a work programme was prepared addressed and that a Publications and with a view to having the new Service Statistics Unit has been established in our operational by November, 1999. All of the new Information Office. necessary preparatory work was completed on target and within the time scale planned and the Service was established in November, 1999, just over three years following the publication of the first Report of the Working Group. 2 3 THE COURTS SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2000 THE COURTS SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2000 I would like to thank all of my judicial colleagues, the Chief Executive Officer and staff of the Courts Service, practitioners and other major court users for their positive response to and support for the new Service. The support of all has been a The Working Group on a Courts source of great encouragement to the Board Commission expressed the view that it and I know to the staff of the Service. would be appropriate for judges to work with staff of the Service in certain I would also like to thank the Minister administrative areas. Already a significant for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, number of judges are working with the the Secretary General of the Department management of the Courts Service in a of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his number of important areas including the staff for their very considerable assistance development of the information technology to us since our establishment. Without their and courts building programme as well support, the progress made to date would as in the preparation of information simply not have been possible. booklets and leaflets. Finally I would commend this Report to all I would like to take this opportunity of as an insight into how real effort can bring thanking the Transitional Board for the about real change and as an insight into the tremendous amount of preparatory work volume, type, complexity and range of work carried out by them and for ensuring being carried out in all of our courts and that the momentum generated by the court offices around the country. Working Group Reports was not allowed to lose its impetus. I would like in particular to thank the Chairman of the Transitional Board, my predecessor, the late Mr Justice Liam Hamilton. I am particularly conscious of the decades of work which predated the new structures Ronan Keane, and since our establishment we have Chief Justice of Ireland and Chairman endeavoured not to replace the past but of the Courts Service Board to build on the strengths of the past and deal with the weaknesses and deficits. We have endeavoured not to replace the past but to build on the strengths of the past and deal with the weaknesses and deficits 4 5 THE COURTS SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2000 Introduction by the Chief Executive Officer I am very pleased to introduce the Courts Service’s The manner in which our staff responded to first Annual Report. The establishment of the what were very fundamental changes and the manner in which they embraced the Courts Service in November 1999 was an historical new arrangements augurs well for the future event representing the most radical reorganisation of the Service. I am very grateful to our of court services in the state since its foundation. staff and to their trade union representatives The absence of Annual Reports about activity for their assistance and co-operation in in our courts and court offices was highlighted resolving the many difficult and complex issues that required to be resolved prior to in the First Report of the Working Group our establishment. These included the on a Courts Commission. creation of unified staff structures, the introduction of uniform arrangements for This Report deals with the period 9th promotion and the introduction of our new November 1999 - 31st December 2000, administrative structures. a time of remarkable change in the Courts Service. It has also been a very busy and I was particularly keen that these potentially exciting time. The transfer of responsibility difficult and divisive issues be resolved prior for the day-to-day administration of our to Establishment Day. This was a view courts to the new independent Courts shared by the staff and their trade union Service agency was achieved smoothly representatives. and without any disruption to services. Work is progressing at pace on planning That this was possible is due, in no small The Service exists to support judges and and implementing major information measure, to the support of everybody staff in our court offices who carry out the technology systems including eGovernment. associated with our courts: the judiciary, the very important day to day work of Significant progress has also been made in staff in all of our court offices, the administrating justice in our country. the refurbishment of courthouses and in the practitioners who represent the public in We must never lose sight of the reasons provision of modern day facilities for judges, our courts, the Secretaries General of the for the existence of the Service. staff and court users. Extensive consultation Department of Justice, Equality and Law arrangements have been put in place to try Reform and Department of Finance and During our first year we have prepared, and ensure that the aspirations of all are met their staff. following a lengthy consultation process insofar as is possible. involving judges, staff, practitioners and other court users our first three year Strategic Plan which sets out the high level The Service exists to support judges goals and objectives for the next three years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Susan Denham
    Susan Denham Chief Justice Denham has been a judge of the superior doesn’t have what it takes’. They will say, courts for over twenty years, having been a practising ‘Women don’t have what it takes’.” barrister for twenty years prior to that. She was appointed Whether consciously or otherwise, Chief Justice to the High Court in 1991 and to the Supreme Court in Denham has, throughout her career been subject to this 1992. In July 2011, she was appointed Chief Justice of pressure to succeed. She has not only succeeded, but also Ireland, by the President, Mary McAleese. excelled. Chief Justice Denham is the longest serving member of When she “took silk” in 1987, rising from Junior to the current Supreme Court and in her career has Senior Counsel, Chief Justice Denham represented the distinguished herself as one of the finest judges in the State in a number of significant extradition cases and she history of the state. Her judgments are thoughtful, erudite became an expert in Judicial Review. She spent ten years and clear. While upholding at all times the Rule of Law at the inner Bar before being appointed to the High Court and delivering clearly principled legal judgments, Chief (1991) and to the Supreme Court the following year. Justice Denham’s judicial pronouncements exude a Chief Justice Denham’s appointment to the Supreme striking humanity. She seems acutely aware of the Court made history. She was the first woman ever to sit on difficulties faced by ordinary people in this country, of the that bench and for eight years, she was the sole female trials and tribulations of family life, of the impact of crime member of the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Court Hearings
    Oireachtas Library & Research Service | Bill Digest L&RS Note Remote Court Hearings Rebecca Halpin, Parliamentary Researcher, Law Abstract<xx> July 2020 28 July 2020 This L&RS Note considers the use of remote hearings in Ireland during the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper describes the way in which remote hearings have been introduced in Ireland and the type of matters in which they are used. The paper then considers the difficulties associated with remote hearings, the need for legislative reform, and circumstances in which remote hearings may be unsuitable. The L&RS gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Dr Rónán Kennedy, School of Law, NUI Galway in reviewing the contents of this Note in advance of publication. Oireachtas Library & Research Service | L&RS Note Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Remote hearings – an overview ...................................................................................................... 3 ICT in Irish courts – capability and capacity .................................................................................... 4 Recent developments that facilitated the introduction of remote hearings .................................. 5 Impact and response to Covid-19 pandemic ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court
    THE HIGH COURT RECORD NO: 2015/4888P Denis O’Brien Plaintiff AND Clerk of Dail Eireann, Sean Barrett, Joe Carey, John Halligan, Martin Heydon, Paul Kehoe, John Lyons, Dinny McGinley, Sean O Fearghail, Aengus O’Snodaigh and Emmet Stagg (Members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of Dáil Éireann), Ireland and the Attorney General Defendants JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on Friday 31st March, 2017 1. The principle of comity as between the legislature and the courts in a system embodying the separation of powers has been described as follows: “This principle is that of mutual respect and forbearance between the legislative and judicial branches, and it has been recognised by the courts as one of the foundations for the privileges (including the privilege of free speech) enjoyed by the House. … The relationship between the courts and 1 Parliament is a matter of the highest constitutional significance. It should be, and generally is, marked by mutual respect and restraint. The underlying assumption is that what is under discussion or determination by either the judiciary or the legislature should not be discussed or determined by the other. The judiciary and the legislature should respect their respective roles.”1 This case raises important issues as to the role of the Court when the principle of comity is breached. Is an individual entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts where a member of the Houses of the Oireachtas has engaged in utterances which, if spoken outside the House, would constitute a breach of a court order obtained by the individual? While this arose in the present case in relation to the revelation of private banking information of the plaintiff, the implications are much wider and would arise whatever the private nature of the information published, be it information relating to a person’s banking, taxation or other financial affairs, health or medical matters, relationships or sexual disposition, or any other information of a private and confidential nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Visit to NUI Galway 4-6 March, 2019 Welcoming the Supreme Court to NUI Galway
    Supreme Court Visit to NUI Galway 4-6 March, 2019 Welcoming the Supreme Court to NUI Galway 4-6 March, 2019 Table of Contents Welcome from the Head of School . 2 Te School of Law at NUI Galway . 4 Te Supreme Court of Ireland . 6 Te Judges of the Supreme Court . 8 2 Welcome from the Head of School We are greatly honoured to host the historic sittings of the Irish Supreme Court at NUI Galway this spring. Tis is the frst time that the Supreme Court will sit outside of a courthouse since the Four Courts reopened in 1932, the frst time the court sits in Galway, and only its third time to sit outside of Dublin. To mark the importance of this occasion, we are running a series of events on campus for the public and for our students. I would like to thank the Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court for participating in these events and for giving their time so generously. Dr Charles O’Mahony, Head of School, NUI Galway We are particularly grateful for the Supreme Court’s willingness to engage with our students. As one of Ireland’s leading Law Schools, our key focus is on the development of both critical thinking and adaptability in our future legal professionals. Tis includes the ability to engage in depth with the new legal challenges arising from social change, and to analyse and apply the law to developing legal problems. Te Supreme Court’s participation in student seminars on a wide range of current legal issues is not only deeply exciting for our students, but ofers them an excellent opportunity to appreciate at frst hand the importance of rigorous legal analysis, and the balance between 3 necessary judicial creativity and maintaining the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Ireland Independent Judiciary 2006
    Brian Curtin v Dail Eireann, Seanad Eireann, et al. Supreme Court [2006] IESC 14, 2 IR 556 9 March 2006 HEADNOTE: Article 35.4.1o of the Constitution provides:- "A judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court shall not be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by Dail Eireann and by Seanad Eireann [lower house and upper house of parliament, respectively] calling for his removal." Pursuant to s. 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, Circuit Court Judges held office by the same tenure as High Court Judges. The applicant, a judge of the Circuit Court, sought to challenge by way of judicial review, a direction of an Oireachtas [Parliament] committee (established following the proposal of a resolution to remove him from office pursuant to Article 35.4.1o of the Constitution) to produce his personal computer to the committee. It was accepted that the computer contained material which constituted child pornography, as defined by the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, but the applicant contended that the material was not knowingly in his possession. The applicant had been prosecuted on indictment for offences under the Act of 1998 and acquitted by direction of the trial judge, by reason of the fact that the warrant used to enter his property had been invalid on the date of its execution, when the computer was seized by the gardai. The computer was retained in the possession of the Garda Commissioner. As part of the scheme to enable the Oireachtas to deal with the case of the applicant under Article 35.4.1o, the Oireachtas passed the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) (Amendment) Act 2004, which provided for the attendance of a judge as a witness before an Oireachtas committee and the Child Trafficking and Pornography (Amendment) Act 2004 which was designed to permit hearings to be conducted and material to be considered without breach of the Act of 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irish Experience by P.J
    Management of the Courts: the Irish Experience By P.J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer, Irish Courts’ Service Background The management and administration of the courts in Ireland had remained essentially unchanged since the Courts of Justice Act of 1924, which provided for the courts system of the new State shortly after independence.1 The 1924 regime left a vacuum, failing to address the need for an independent administrative structure for the Courts. There was, for example, no Department such as the Lord Chancellor’s Department. Under the Act, the Department of Justice managed the Courts and their funding apart from judicial salaries. Those arrangements followed what is often loosely referred to as the “Ministry of Justice” model. Responsibility for the provision of budgetary, staffing and other resources, and the management of those resources, rested with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as it is now known, through its Courts Division. As distinct from the allocation of business before the courts, the Judiciary – although it might be consulted and make representations – had little input into the allocation of resources or the way in which they were deployed. The extent of the Minister for Justice’s remit - and limits of the Judiciary’s – in this regard is best summed up by the provisions which governed the management of the various offices of the High Court and staffing arrangements for the Superior Courts generally. Senior management in the courts was “subject to the general direction of the Minister in regard
    [Show full text]
  • JUSTICE for DAY SCHOOL SURVIVORS - EXEC - O'keeffe V
    Department of the Taoiseach Department of the Tánaiste Department of Education & Skills Mr. Micheál Martin TD Mr. Leo Varadkar TD Ms. Norma Foley TD Taoiseach Minister for Enterprise, Trade Department of Education and Skills Government Buildings, and Employment Marlborough Street, Upper Merrion Street, Department of Business, Dublin 1. D01 RC96 Dublin 2 Enterprise and Innovation, Kildare Street, T: (01) 6183103 | M: (086) 390 0312 T: +353 1 619 4000 Dublin 2, D02 TD30 E: [email protected] PE: [email protected] E: [email protected] T: + 353 1 631 2172 W: https://bit.ly/3eUY1rS PE: [email protected] E: [email protected] W: https://bit.ly/2AdiVUa PE: [email protected] W: http://leovaradkar.ie PLEASE QUOTE REF NUMBER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE Your Ref: 1800682/AM RE: 200731 - JUSTICE for DAY SCHOOL SURVIVORS - EXEC - O'Keeffe v. Ireland (Application No. 35810/09) - https://bit.ly/38rZBiA JUSTICE in IRELAND is JUSTICE in EUROPE 31st July 2020 Dear Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Minister Foley, Minister O’Gorman, Minister Coveney, Minister McEntee, Other Ministers, TDs and Senators, MEPs, Mr President and those in receipt of this letter, I have awaited a clear response from the Minister for Education in consultation with the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and other relevant ministers on the question of justice for day school survivors of child sexual abuse specifically where a criminal conviction has been obtained. Three weeks ago, I note in an interview with PJ Coogan on The Opinion Line on Cork’s 96FM (checkout timestamp from 50:49 to 52:26) on 6th July with Taoiseach Micheál Martin, the question of day school survivors was discussed, but strangely was not given any priority in the Programme for Government nor marked for special consideration and urgent attention where further delay has characterised the response to this important issue by successive governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Nui Honorary Degrees Awarded
    NUI HONORARY DEGREES AWARDED Note 1: The graduates listed below obtained honorary doctorates from the Royal University of Ireland in or before the year 1909, and subsequently registered as graduates of the National University of Ireland. Adeney, Walter E DSc 1897 Anderson, Alexander, DSc 1909 BA, 1880; MA, 1881 Byrne, Very Rev. Peter LLD 1909 Cameron, Sir Charles A, MD 1896 CB Cochrane, Robert LLD 1905 Conway, Arthur W., BA, DSc 1908 1896; MA, 1897; FRS D’Alton, Very Rev. LLD 1909 Edward A., Canon Delany, Very Rev LLD 1885 William Flood, William H. G. DMus 1907 Healy, His Grace the DLitt 1885 Most Rev John Hogan, Rev Edmund DLitt 1897 Hyde, Douglas, (first DLitt 1906 President of Ireland) LLD University of Dublin McClelland, John, BA DSc 1906 1892, MA 1893, FRS McGrath, Sir Joseph LLD 1892 Pye, Joseph P., MD, DSc 1882 MCh 1871 Senier, Alfred DSc 1908 Windle, Sir Bertram LLD 1907 C.A., FRS Note 2: The Senate of the newly founded National University of Ireland awarded honorary doctorate degrees on the persons listed below; they had attended the Catholic University of Ireland for conscientious reasons, but the Catholic University did not have the authority to award degrees. Bodkin, His Honour Judge LLD 1915 Mathias McDonnell Cannon, Richard MD 1915 Connolly, Nicholas T. LLD 1915 Creagh, William LLD 1915 Crean, Lt.-Col. John Joseph LLD 1915 Crean, Thomas J. MD 1915 Cuffe, Surgeon-General Sir LLD 1915 Charles McD, KCB Dawson, Charles LLD 1915 De La Pasture, Rev. Charles LLD 1915 E, SJ Dillon, Rev. Henry, OFM LLD 1915 Dillon, William LLD 1915 Fottrell, John G.
    [Show full text]
  • Address of the Hon. Mr Justice Frank Clarke, Chief Justice of Ireland, to the Law Reform
    Address of The Hon. Mr Justice Frank Clarke, Chief Justice of Ireland, to the Law Reform Commission Annual Conference, November 2017 ____________ Firstly can I thank the President for the opportunity to do the one thing I have wanted all my life; that is to be the warm up act for Michael McDowell and Dearbhail McDonald. Those who are old enough will remember that, in a previous life, one John Quirke was a quite distinguished scrum half in rugby who represented Leinster and occasionally Ireland. So I feel now like the out-half who has just been passed the ball by the nippy scrumhalf and I have to make a number of decisions. Do I deploy the hard-running of inside-centre McDowell; or the silkier skills of outside-centre McDonald; or do I try and go for a run on my own; or do I put up a Garryowen and throw up a few ideas and see where they land. I will leave it up to you at the end of my address to determine which of these plays I have decided to deploy. I would like to do two things. First, I hope to make some general observations on where we are at in relation to law reform, particularly so far as it affects the courts, as that is the day job and it is my job to consider these matters in relation to the courts; and second, to seek to apply those general observations to a number of areas which might benefit from future research on the part of the Law Reform Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 (Act No. 39 of 1961)
    Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 Number 39 of 1961. COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary and General Section 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation generally. 3. Repeals and saving. PART II Supreme Court, High Court, Chief Justice, President of the High Court, Central Criminal Court and Court of Criminal Appeal 4. Number of ordinary judges of Supreme Court and High Court. 5. Qualifications of judges of Supreme Court and High Court. 6. Pensions of judges of Supreme Court and High Court. 7. General jurisdiction of Supreme Court. 8. General jurisdiction of High Court. 9. Jurisdiction of High Court in lunacy and minor matters. 10. Jurisdiction of Chief Justice and President of the High Court. 11. The Central Criminal Court. 12. Jurisdiction of Court of Criminal Appeal. 13. High Court Circuits. 14. Jurisdiction to be exercised pursuant to rules of court (Supreme Court, High Court, Chief Justice, President of the High Court, Central Criminal Court and Court of Criminal Appeal). PART III Circuit Court 15. Definitions (Part III). 16. Number of ordinary judges of Circuit Court. 17. Qualifications of judges of Circuit Court. 18. Age of retirement of judge of Circuit Court. 19. Pensions of judges of Circuit Court. 20. Circuits and assignment of judges to circuits. 21. Circuit Court to be a court of record. 22. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court, except in applications for new on-licences and in indictable offences. 23. Jurisdiction of Cork Circuit Court Judge in admiralty causes and in bankruptcy. 24. Jurisdiction of Circuit Court in applications for new on-licences.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts Service Ireland
    Response questionnaire project group Timeliness Courts' Service Ireland 1 The Court System and Available Statistics 1.1 The Court System The Irish justice system consists primarily of four tiers of courts; the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court. The District Court is the lowest court, having jurisdiction over minor civil and criminal matters. The civil jurisdiction does not exceed €6,348.69. For criminal matters the Court only hears minor offences. It only hears criminal cases where the maximum custodial sentence permitted upon conviction is 12 months or up to 2 years where a consecutive sentence is imposed. The District Court also has some jurisdiction in the family law area. Proceedings in Family Law are not heard in open court and are as informal as is practicable. The District Court also has wide powers in relation to liquor and lottery licensing. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction in most criminal jury trials and civil matters with a jurisdiction not exceeding €38,092.14. It also hears appeals from the District Court. The Circuit and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in the area of Family Law. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction in a wide range of family law proceedings, (judicial separation, divorce, nullity and appeals from the District Court). The High Court has full and original jurisdiction in all matters and is the constitutional Court of first instance. In terms of its criminal jurisdiction, it sits as the Central Criminal Court and has jurisdiction over the most serious criminal trials, including those relating to murder, rape and serious sexual offences.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Costs in Ireland: Who Pays? the Laws and Principles and Comparative Considerations
    LEGAL COSTS IN IRELAND: WHO PAYS? THE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES AND COMPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University by Jevon Alcock (LL.M, Solicitor and Notary Public) Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University February 2019 Resubmission April 2020 Supervised by: Mr. Thomas Serby, Dr. Stefan Mandelbaum, Dr. Aldo Zammit-Borda. Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to Mr David J. O’Hagan, former Chief State Solicitor, Dublin, Ireland who nominated me to serve on various committees and working groups on legal costs, which ignited my interest in this adjectival but pervasive area of law. I also wish to thank Dr. Desmond Hogan, and Mr Owen Wilson, Assistant Chief State Solicitors, both of whom supported my training and development. And, in this regard, I wish to acknowledge the financial assistance I received from the Chief State Solicitor’s Office towards my fees on the doctoral programme. Additionally, I wish to convey my thanks to Mr Brian Byrne, former Assistant Chief State Solicitor, who supported my admission as a solicitor in New South Wales, Australia, which in turn, ameliorated my legal knowledge and bolstered my capacity to perform comparative research. I wish to thank Mr Richard Walker, barrister-at-law, formerly head of the Commercial and Constitutional Litigation Section, who enabled me to secure experience across a broad swathe of subject areas, without which my capacity to undertake chapter 4 would have been fatally compromised. Moreover, I wish to thank Ms Karen Duggan, who as head of that section, ensured that I gained exposure to a broad cross-section of work.
    [Show full text]