Skibb courthouse closure appealed

Plans to close Skibbereen courthouse and have the business of the court undertaken in Clonakilty were challenged in judicial review proceedings at the High Court in Cork yesterday.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan reserved judgement after a day of legal submissions presented on behalf of the West Cork Bar Association and the Court Service.

Counsel Maurice Collins set out the case made by the West Cork Bar Association.

“Constitutional values are at stake here. This case involves fundamental aspect of the constitutional justice system providing not just a system of courts, but also local to the people they serve, local to the users of the courts.”

He argued it was not simply an argument about convenience but about the provision of a system of courts as required by the constitution. Mr Collins distinguished Skibbereen courthouse from the situation that pertained in relation to Tipperary courthouse where the roof had literally fallen in; was a dangerous structure and could not have been used without significant expenditure.

“This is a courthouse which is in fair condition,” he said about Skibbereen.

“What is required is that there has to be justification for closure of a courthouse. It is not similar to the closure of a Teagasc office or something else. This is part of the fabric of justice. It is not that courthouses can never be closed or altered. But a decision to close a functioning courthouse should be subject to close scrutiny.”

Mr Collins challenged the statutory powers of the Court Service to close functioning courthouses.

“The consultation process was a flawed process. The Court Service never consulted on a scenario where Skibbereen was closed and moved to Clonakilty,” he said, adding Clonakilty was only mentioned at the end after a number of scenarios had first been mentioned over a long period of time.

Mr Collins said it was not just the West Cork Bar Association who had spoken against the closure of Skibbereen courthouse, but that similar submissions had been made by judges and solicitors. Local representatives had also spoken out against the closure.

Mr Collins wanted Mr Justice Noonan to quash the closure decision made by the Court Service.

Mark Sanfey, for the Court Service, said courthouses were not like hospitals in terms of their place in the local community, and unlike someone attending regularly at their local hospital for dialysis, each citizen might only appear once in their lifetime in their local court.

He said the Court Service was subject to government policy and budgetary constraints and that this underpinned their actions.

Mr Sanfey said there were ongoing reviews of the viability and efficiency of court venues, and it was only courthouses which scored poorly across a range of criteria that were considered for closure.

Mr Justice Noonan said that Skibbereen reported poorly on the criteria and scored at 13 on the Court Service assessment. The criteria on which it was assessed included the local caseload, the physical condition of the building, availability of an alternative venue, disabled access, technology, staff numbers and other criteria.

Mr Sanfey said much was made of the Court Service financial figures but that budget was not even considered as the most important feature.

“If it is not important why is there such emphasis on it in your own reports?” the judge asked. Mr Sanfey replied, “I am not saying it is not important.”

Referring to Mr Collins’s submissions, Mr Sanfey said: “What he has not said is that anybody has been denied access to justice whatsoever. There is no affidavit from the applicant with anybody saying, ‘If I have to be in Clonakilty at 10.30am, I am simply not going to be able to make it’.”