14th June 2004
Sometimes I am amazed at the topics on which people contact me. A recent one has been on ewe headage payments in the early nineteen nineties and the alleged wrongs done to some farmers by the Ministry for Agriculture. Animal lover that I am, I have met a few ewes in my time and even delivered some lambs but regarding the headage payments schemes and the rights and wrongs thereof, I know little. I do remember a forester friend of mine being totally against them because, he said, sheep were being kept on entirely unsuitable hills of Ireland where trees could be planted and in some cases were starving to death.
Now the man who contacted me has genuine troubles and feels he has been very hard done by but how I am to untangle this is a mystery to me. I have got a grip of the situation regarding the sheep which were on his Uncles' farm and there rests the problem of the second herd number but most of the rest of the saga is beyond me. One thing is quite clear, however, he is deeply distressed and all this is probably affecting his life and health very seriously.
Stress about situations we cannot alter or solve is terrible and I welcome very much many provisions of the new Civil Liability and Courts Bill 2004. The first part of this Bill provides for changes in the way people can claim for personal injuries and this includes medical negligence. As readers will be aware, medical negligence is not covered by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and Enterprise Liability is in its early stages so we have not seen how that will work out yet.
The Bill proposes to make it more difficult for "chancers" to make personal injuries claims. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that such people are amongst us and a Courts' Register is to be set up on the internet, with cross referencing, so that those with a serious problem with seeing potholes in footpaths will be identified and helped to evaluate where they are walking more carefully, I presume.
At the same time it is extremely important that genuine claimants are treated fairly. The Minister for Justice proposed that only one year should be allowed for a plaintiff to make a case once he or she knew they had a problem.
Cheshire Ireland made a submission to me suggesting that one year was far too short to allow someone who had been seriously injured get themselves together enough to take a court case. They said two years would be a compromise the Minister might accept, seeing that the present length of time is three years. The Minister seems agreeable to that and this will apply, too, to cases of alleged medical negligence.
Now, medical negligence cases are often complex and if claimants are obliged to issue proceedings after one year we could end up with more rather than less claims against members of the medical profession, claimants fearing they might run out of time. To my relief the Minister was very sympathetic about this and even had kind words to say about members of the medical profession, the gist of which was that medical negligence cases are extremely stressful for the doctor or doctors involved as well as for the claimant. It was good to see he recognised this because the psychological effects on members of the medical profession and the loss of practice and career even if the doctor is totally exonerated often goes unnoticed.
So, if the Bill proceeds on these lines medical negligence cases would have to be filed within two years of the time the claimant decided there was a problem. Justice must be done to the defendant as well as to the plaintiff and must be seen to be done.
The issue of justice being seen to be done is the content of the second part of the Bill which allows for limited reporting of Family Law cases which are held in camera, and for years I have had submissions on this. The Courts Services tried to institute a Family Law Reporting Project some years ago but the then Attorney General, now Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, said "In Camera" meant just that and not even a specially selected barrister to report on cases anonymously with the permission of the plaintiff and defendant could be allowed. Legislation was needed, he said, and here it is.
It is hoped that the reporting of Family Law cases will lead to the building up of a body of Family Law jurisprudence which will be of help to those working in the area. As it is, judges work totally on their own and no one has any idea how good or negligent are those solicitors and barristers who bring forward cases which are of such importance in the lives of many of our citizens.
I feel also that some sample cases should, on an anonymous basis and with the permission of those involved, be publicised, so that the public can see how serious these cases are. A submission to me from the National Network of Women's Refuges and Support Services, also suggested that statistics should be gathered on the age, gender, nationality/ethnicity, family status etc., of all applicants. If children were involved, their age and number, and if domestic violence was the cause of the complaint, its nature and had there been previous episodes. Also had the Gardai and/or Health Boards been involved. This sort of data would give professionals working with families a much better idea of what is going on and which are problem areas. Academic research should be encouraged, too.
It was put to me also that if orders are made in the Family Courts regarding children it should be possible for these to be made immediately available to the Gardai, the Passport Office, etc., without a plaintiff having to go to the High Court as well because this can cause delay and expense
Here is an account of some of the submissions made to me with which I am better able to deal than ewe headage iniquities!
Senator Mary Henry, MD
