As I indicated on the First Reading, the object of the Bill which is under consideration is to simplify the forms of charges against accused persons in criminal cases tried before a jury. Forms of indictment in the past might in many instances be described as a confused mass of technical words for which there were, no doubt, excellent reasons in the criminal jurisprudence of other times, but which are now rightly considered feudal and archaic. It is thought that the charge in every every criminal case should be nothing more than a clear and explicit statement of the offence or offences which the accused person, is called upon to answer, together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to its nature. There are rules set out in the First Schedule to the Bill, designed, amongst other things, to secure simplicity in criminal pleadings, and the appendix which is given shows a large number of illustrations of the proposed working of rules in particular cases. The outstanding thing in the illustrations is the absence of the use of any technical words.
The Bill is arranged in twelve sections. Section I proposes that the rules contained in the First Schedule shall have effect as if indicated in the Act, and provides for additions and variations. Section 2 provides that Rules made under the Act shall be made by the same authority as the authority which will make the Rules of Court mentioned in Section 36 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that Section 101 of that Act, which relates to the approval of Rules of Court by a Resolution of each House of the Oireachtas, shall apply to the new indictment rules. Section 3 indicates the Rules which may be made under the Act, namely, Rules varying or annulling all or any of the Rules contained in the First Schedule, or additional Rules. It provides that the Rules in the Schedule shall have effect subject to the modification or additions so made.
Section 4 contains the central proposal in the measure. "Every indictment shall contain... the specific offence or offences with which the accused person is charged, together with such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the charge." It shall no longer be possible to delay the jurisdiction of the court on a merely technical objection to the form of the indictment, if it is framed in accordance with the simple formulæ of the proposed rules. This simpler method has the additional advantage of bringing home directly to the mind of the accused person the offence with which he stands charged, without legal assistance. Section 5 provides that the charges for more than one indictable offence may be made in the same indictment, and the right of the person accused to challenge jurors in cases of felony is preserved in the Bill.
Under Section 6 the court is enabled to amend defects in the indictment, where such a course can be followed without injustice. Provision is made to ensure that no injustice or embarrassments will be done to the accused person by the fact that he is charged with more than one offence in the same indictment. It is left to the discretion of the court to order separate trials for each offence if it is thought fit to do so, and in cases of amendment of the indictment, or orders for separate trials, the court is given power to order such postponement of the trial as may appear necessary. The necessary supplemental provisions for such separate trials or postponement of trials is also included. Indictments which are unduly prolix are discouraged by giving power to the court to order payment of costs of the prosecution incurred by reason of the indictment being of unnecessary length. The provisions of the Vexatious Indictments Act of 1859 are preserved under the Bill.
Section 9 provides that in cases of indictable offences the charges shall be prosecuted in court at the suit of the Attorney-General, and it also provides that prosecutions in courts of summary jurisdiction shall be prosecuted at the suit of the Attorney-General, save where such may be done by a Minister or Department of State or by any person authorised in that behalf by the law for the time being in force. This saving clause will enable Departments to prosecute in ordinary minor cases and it also preserves the right of the private citizen to prosecute where he is empowered by law to do so. Section 10 prescribes the oath to be administered to jurors empanelled for the trial of any criminal charge or issue. The oath is couched in simple language, and any juror taking the oath would have no difficulty in understanding its nature. Section 11 is merely a saving clause to ensure that no implied changes in the law not intended will take place. For example, it is provided that the place of trial shall not be altered by anything in the Bill, nor is the law of evidence to be altered in any way. The first schedule contains rules which are partly concerned with the demands of administrative convenience; for example, the form of the paper on which the charge is written, and partly the model to be followed in describing offences.
The indictment starts with "The Attorney-General of Saorstát Eireann v. A.B." The court of trial is named and the charge to be preferred to the jury is specified. For example, A.B. is charged with the following offence— and then there will be a simple statement of the offence. The statement of offence will be the generic title for the particulars of the offence. The particulars of the offence will contain specific details of the actual facts and the circumstances constituting the offence. The rules lay down models as to the description of any indictment. The appendix gives illustrations of a short statement of offence; particulars of offence, in 25 different types of cases.
Cases which are not covered in the appendix will be described in a similar manner, and if this is done, the provision of section 4, which states that an indictment will be sufficient if it contains a statement of the specific offence and reasonable particulars as to the nature of the charge, make it clear that such forms of indictment will be given.
In 1915, in England, an Act was passed which simplified the forms of indictment. That Act was not extended to Ireland. I think it is a matter that will be generally agreed that the reform in this country should not be any longer delayed, particularly having regard to the fact that a new system of courts is being established in the country under the Courts of Justice Act. Many of the forms of indictment were cumbrous, archaic and feudal. A habitual drunkard, for instance, was described under the former indictment as "disturbing the King's peace and dignity," and there are many other forms of indictment calculated rather to confuse the prisoner than to convey any clear idea to his mind of the offence with which he is charged. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.