While a group has been set up under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, to examine the accountability of judges, the issue has already reached the European Court.
The Government has already admitted liability in one complaint, against Mr Justice Hamilton himself, and a second case is now threatened, also relating to the Chief Justice. Both concern alleged delays.
The first complaint, a bankruptcy case, was brought against the State for failing to legislate to ensure judges delivered a judgment within a specified time. Flattery v Ireland was listed in the European Court of Human Rights last summer when the State admitted liability, and the case has now gone to arbitration on damages. There is a confidentiality clause in the proposed settlement.
The second case concerns a couple, Mr Terry and Mrs Maureen Doran who, the Attorney General has acknowledged, have had such a bad experience at the hands of the State he agreed to their meeting an official in his office.
They bought a site for a house in Co Wicklow in 1990. When it emerged that there was no access to the site they brought an action against the vendors, their own solicitors and the vendors' solicitors. This began in 1991.
The case opened before Mr Justice Hamilton, then President of the High Court, in 1993, who adjourned it after two days. The hearing resumed almost exactly a year later, and was adjourned again for judgment. This was eventually delivered in September 1995. In the meantime Mrs Doran had become ill through stress, and a letter from her GP warned: "The delay in the hearing of her court case has led to a worsening of her depression."
The judgment found against the Dorans in relation to the vendors' solicitor, and they appealed to the Supreme Court late in 1995, where Chief Justice Hamilton was now presiding.
Frustrated by the continued delays, the Dorans sought political help to bring the matter to a conclusion. Among those they contacted were the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Tanaiste, Ms Harney.
In November 1997 the Attorney General, Mr David Byrne SC, wrote to Ms Harney about the case, saying: "They considered that the delays that they have experienced in relation to having their case dealt with in the High Court were unacceptable. As you are aware, I have raised this issue with the Chief Justice, and have been assured that all outstanding matters have been dealt with."
One of the matters which had arisen was a conflict of evidence between the two sets of solicitors, which Mr Justice Hamilton, as the judge who heard the initial case, was asked to resolve. He produced a report on this in October 1997, along with a letter to the Dorans' solicitor apologising for the delay.
The case came up in the Supreme Court in February 1998, and the court unanimously found in favour of the Dorans. It now had to go back to the High Court.
In July 1998 the Attorney General wrote again to Ms Harney about the case. "In this case I felt that the Dorans' experience at the hands of the State had been such that I could not in all conscience refuse them a face-to-face meeting with an official, even though I was fully aware that such a meeting would not give any concrete assistance to the Dorans I was unable for constitutional reasons to assist them.
"You will note that I have ascertained that the Dorans' case is listed for hearing in the High Court on 13th October."
A High Court hearing for the assessment of damages took place in October, where they were awarded £192,000 against the solicitors and £10,000 general damages. However, they do not feel the latter reflects the damages they incurred as a result of the delays - seven years elapsed between the initiation of the action and the final judgment.
Mr and Mrs Doran claim the State is in breach of Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
Mr Justice Hamilton refused to comment on the cases, saying it would be inappropriate as one is under arbitration at the moment and the other is going to the European Court.
Fianna Fail TD Mr Dick Roche, who has been very concerned about this case, recently tabled three parliamentary questions in the Dail on delays in the higher courts, which were disallowed. He is now seeking information on delays in these courts under the Freedom of Information Act, and told The Irish Times yesterday he was prepared to challenge the Department of Justice in the High Court if the information was not forthcoming.