Chief Justice, Tánaiste, members of the Judiciary and distinguished guests. 

I am delighted, as the chairman of the sub group tasked with producing this report, to run briefly through some of the more important points.

At the outset, I am delighted that so many people have taken time to come to this launch today including the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Murray, the President of the High Court Mr. Justice Johnson and Mr. Justice Finnegan of the Supreme Court, who is chairing a committee to review the work of the District Court.  I am also delighted to see other judicial colleagues and the CEO Mr. P.J. Fitzpatrick and other members of the Courts Service.  The attendance of so many people demonstrates the interest that a proposed initiative such as the introduction of Community Courts to this country has generated.

As the chairman has said, Mr. Tom Coffey brought the idea of Community Courts to the attention of the Crime Council.  I have always had an interest in restorative justice and having seen it in operation in New Zealand,  I initiated the Nenagh Reparation Project.  As this project proved a success and because of my continued interest in restorative justice, in 2005 I went to see, at first hand, the operation of the Red Hook Community Court in Brooklyn, New York.  From what I saw, I was more than enthusiastic to support the suggestion that the Council look at the concept of introducing Community Courts to Ireland.  

The first Community Court was set up in Midtown, Manhattan, NewYork  Since then Community Courts have been opened in various locations throughout the world such as: -  South Africa and England. Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada have also all launched programmes based on the Community Court model. No two Community Courts can be said to be the same.  Each Community Court, while having certain characteristics that are common to all, addresses issues that are particular to its own location.   The following are common characteristics:-

• A dedicated judge
• A pre-trial assessment in each case
• Offenders must plead guilty in order to participate in the process;
• A problem solving focus by all in the system
• A team based approach
• Speedy access to social and other services and to community work
• Rigorous monitoring of compliance with court orders
• Provision of an element of restitution
• A formalised involvement with the local community

The experience of those working in, or with knowledge of, Community Courts is that their introduction has led to a significant decrease in crime.  The facts and figures are set out in the report.

You may ask why suggest Community Courts for Ireland?  In Chapter 2 we set out in detail the case we make for the introduction of these courts.  In order to make the case for these courts, it is necessary to set out briefly the limitations, the difficulties and the deficiencies in the present system.

The options open to a District Court Judge in the present system are limited.  At one end of the spectrum is imprisonment and at the other end is a dismissal under the Probation of Offenders Act.  In between these, the options can include, inter alia, probation, a fine, a suspended sentence, a community service order or a combination of a number of these.  The present system cannot be said to be proactive in dealing with underlying problems that offenders may have prior to a final order being made because the Court does not have a range of problem solving options such as speedy access to social and other services.  The Court cannot be proactive in monitoring compliance with its own orders.  There is not a dedicated Judge.   There may be many adjournments before any steps are taken which might benefit the defendant, the victim or the community. 

We recommend that Community Courts be established in Ireland as stand alone courts in areas of high population.  Otherwise, Community Courts could form a part of an ordinary District Court in rural areas.

We are satisfied that different persons and bodies would benefit from the introduction of these courts:-

1.                  Defendants, by

• A pre-trial assessment to identify any underlying problems the defendant may have.
• A dedicated judge - hence the defendant has the benefit of seeing the same judge on all occasions.
• An early plea of guilty - in the traditional court an early plea of guilty will only be a factor in mitigation of sentence - in the Community Court this early plea will ensure that the defendant will get into the "system" immediately.  A problem solving focus.  By identifying any underlying problems, the cycle of re-offending may be broken.
• A guarantee of speedy access to all key services.
• Rigorous monitoring of compliance with all the Court's orders.
• Finally, if the defendant has complied with all the requirements of the Community Court, the case will be disposed of without a conviction being recorded.  In the event of the defendant not complying with orders of the Community Court, he / she can be sentenced as in any District Court.

2.      Community, by           

• An element of restitution through community work.  Community work should be carried out in the geographic area of the offence.
• A formalised involvement with the local community.  The efficient manner in which defendants are dealt with and how offending is targeted can only improve confidence in the Criminal Justice System.  At present, community members have little interaction with the traditional courts except in their roles as jurors, witnesses, victims or as part of the audience.

1.      The Criminal Justice System, by

• Decisions on prosecutions would be made quickly.
• Adjournments would be reduced.
• Early guilty pleas would be the norm.
• Would be more efficient use of court time and resources.

We recommend that an initial Community Court be set up in the inner city of Dublin which would deal with quality of life offences committed in the Store Street and Pearse Street Garda station catchment areas.

We recommend that the court be located in a dedicated building in the geographic area just mentioned.  However, in making this recommendation, we are aware of the advanced plans for a criminal court complex for Dublin.

At page 38, we set out the types of offence that we consider suitable to be dealt with by the Dublin Community Court.  These would be considered low-level offences but ones that impinge on the quality of life of the people living in, working in or visiting the inner city.  These offences reflect the underlying social problems that Community Courts are designed to address.

We have considered the possible caseload for a Community Court and consider that initially 40 new cases a day would be manageable.  The court would, of course, be dealing with ongoing supervision of defendants.  The workload of the Court would be kept under constant review.

At pages 40 to 43,  we deal with the model for Dublin.  While it is not possible in this brief overview to go into all the details, I should mention two important issues.  The first concerns the Court Co-Coordinator who will play a pivotal role.  The second concerns our recommendations concerning the services that must be available to the court.  It is therefore essential that appropriate service level agreements be put in place prior to the opening of any Community Court.  These two issues are of the utmost importance as, in their absence, a Community Court cannot operate effectively.   We also recommend that where community work is ordered it should, except in exceptional circumstances, commence immediately.  It should be measured in days not hours with the maximum being 4 days.  You will also note on page 43 our views on the involvement of the local community.

Chapter 4 deals with the progression of the case through the Community Court.  The chart on page 46 sets out the steps.  These steps are all clearly explained in the text.

Chapter 5 deals with the implementation of the Community Court and other issues.

The operation of Community Courts in Ireland will be the responsibility of the Courts Service.  We recommend that an implementation group be established immediately to oversee the introduction of the Dublin Community Court.  All relevant statutory and non statutory agencies, as well as, community representatives should be on the implementation group.  This group should be chaired by a nominee of the Courts Service.  We set out on page 52 the agencies and / or Departments that we feel should be represented on the implementation group.

We recommend that a project manager with a proven track record be appointed to oversee the development of the Dublin Community Court.   We further recommend that the court be open within six months of the appointment of the project manager.  In Liverpool, we saw the advantages of having a project manager.  The Liverpool Community Justice Centre was operating within 4 months of the appointment of the project manager.  He had both political and administrative backing.  We further recommend that the project manager should consult with the appropriate organisations that would provide services to the Dublin Community Court.  We set out on page 53, a minimum list of these organisations.

Finally, Chapter five deals with the question of the ongoing evaluation of the Court.

This has been but an overview of our vision for a Community Court for this country.  We make in all 20 recommendations.  To understand all of these, it is necessary to read them in conjunction with the relevant part of the report.  I have only mentioned a few and hope that these words have been of some help and not too boring.