I would like, before Section 3 is put, to have some explanation of it. This Section provides that the power of assigning a judge of the High Court to be a judge of the Central Criminal Court and to act as such at the Central Criminal Court for the time being shall be vested in the President of the High Court alone. I do not know whether there is any change in the law or practice in respect of this, but I am given to understand that it has been the practice that there should be a rota and that the judges should, without seeing what cases were coming forward, and without knowing the cases that were to be tried by them, be allotted in some sort of rotation. Now assigning this authority to the President of the High Court seems to me to open a responsibility for appointing a particular judge whose views may have been already declared on certain principles involved, and it is likely to lead the way to suspicion, and, shall I say, minimise the confidence the public should have in the courts, to say that a particular judge shall be appointed to try a particular case ad hoc. I do not pretend to speak with any authority or knowledge. I am only dealing with this matter as it appears on the face of it. But the practice, that in the course of a session, judges should be appointed beforehand and automatically fill the place without knowledge of what cases are coming forward, seems to be more in accordance with the responsibilities of the High Court than that when a special case of a particular character comes forward affecting particular persons any individual, even though he is the President of the High Court, should have power to decide what particular judge should try that particular case. I think it would tend to the lessening of public confidence in the impartiality of the courts. I raise that point with a view to having some explanation from the Minister as to the meaning of this section.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL, 1925.—COMMITTEE STAGE.
The purpose of this section is simply to provide some definite and certain channel of assigning judges to the Central Criminal Court, not as the Deputy suggests or seems to think ad hoc, for a particular case, but to take a particular session's work, and to take a particular term's work at that kind of business. Without some such provision the matter was entirely vague. It was understood that there was a practice and precedent about it, that the power of assigning lay in a particular quarter, lay with the President of the High Court. But pressed for any express provision to that effect, none would be forthcoming, and it is thought desirable to set out specifically that it shall lie with the President of the High Court to make the assignments, not to get away from the idea of rotation, but to fix a rotation, and state in what order that kind of work was to be taken by a particular judge.
Could the Minister not make sure that that would be the effect? Could he not do so by inserting a provision saying that periodically at the opening of the session, or something of that kind, such a rotation should be fixed? As I read this, "the time being" might be fitted into the trial of a particular case, and I think the Minister should be obliged to give us some reason as to why the change should take place. Have there been any evils arising out of the present practice that require to be remedied? Can the Minister instance any defects in the practice or procedure, or any evil consequences of the present procedure that would require a change?
Clearly the Deputy should be prepared to assume that the section would not be put in without some reason—if the difficulty had not, in fact, arisen, that it was not clear that there was authority somewhere to say what particular judge would take a particular term's work. Otherwise you leave it vague. You leave it entirely a matter for discussion and agreement, and there is, at any rate, the possibility that agreement would not be forthcoming. In the absence of such agreement it is necessary to say that a particular person has the power of assignment. That is what is sought here. I do not agree with the Deputy that a particular judge, having been assigned to take a term's criminal work, that this section would leave it open to the President of the High Court, or anyone else, to withdraw that judge or send some other judge ad hoc to try a particular case. I think that was the Deputy's point.
In effect yes, but I think that the position may be that a central criminal court may have one, two, or three cases to be heard—one of them being, say, of a high political importance. If this is inserted in its present form it might well be that the confidence of the public in the court would be damaged if it could be said that the President of the High Court was appointing a particular judge to try a particular case or a series of cases which will obviously appear to be ad hoc in view of the importance of this one case. Unless you set down the procedure over a particular period or periods, not apparently or obviously dealing with particular cases, I think there is going to be damage done to the public confidence.
Of course it is rather difficult to meet that point of view, assuming that it exists largely and that Deputy Johnson is representative in expressing it. Apply that to other cases, to the general work of the courts, and someone must have the power of assigning judges and apportioning the work of the courts, and if the person doing that is to be open to the suggestion, or the suspicion, that he is apportioning work and assigning judges with an eye to the probable result of a case if tried by a particular judge, then it is rather a difficult frame of mind to meet.
I think, if my memory is right, the Courts of Justice Act provides for a consultation between the judges to arrange their work. I think something of that kind is required.
The Rules of Court.
I think there is something in the Courts of Justice Act in regard to that matter. The provision of the Courts of Justice Act says "the Central Criminal Court shall mean the judge of the High Court to whom is assigned the duty of acting as such court for the time being." Assigned by whom? There was a lacuna in the 1924 Act and it was left entirely vague as to how and by whom a judge was to be assigned for this particular work, and the suggestion that the assignment should be made by the principal judge of that particular court, by the President of the High Court, seems a reasonable one. After all, he has a responsibility for all the work carried out by the High Court and he must apportion the work amongst the available judges. Incidentally he must apportion and, I submit, should have power of apportioning, this particular phase of the work, the Criminal Court, and that is really all that is sought in Section 3 of this supplementary Bill. As I say, it is almost impossible to meet the frame of mind which says that judges will be assigned to try particular cases—if criminal also, presumably, civil——
Did the Minister ever hear of Peter the Packer?
Yes, but there was not responsible Government in the country then, and there were not two Houses of Parliament before which matters of that kind could be raised.
The conduct of judges cannot be dealt with in this Parliament.
Yes, on motion.
Certainly, on motion before the two Houses.
You would want to arraign them.
As we found in other Bills, there are certain suggestions that really could not be adequately guarded against by the provisions of this Bill, and I think this suggestion is one—the suggestion that judges will be selected to do particular work with an eye to the probable result if it is done by this judge, rather than by that judge. That suggestion goes to the very root of the whole judicial system and to the root of your whole confidence in the administration of the law, and, I think, it cannot be met. If one were to attempt to meet it, it would really mean that one had not confidence in the judges appointed by the Executive and in the desire of judges to be impartial between indicted persons and the State. I can only suggest, if and when cases of that kind arise, Deputy Johnson, or his successor in the leadership of the Opposition of the future, would merely have to put down a motion and raise the whole question.
After the man is hanged, perhaps.
I do not see any way out of it. Section 3 of our Bill seems to be merely filling the lacuna in the Act of 1924 which stated that a particular duty was to be assigned without stating by whom. If you say it is not to be assigned at all, and if you leave no power of assignment to anyone, then it is simply a matter of consultation, in the hope of agreement, between the judges themselves. Supposing one judge says:"I do not like Green Street. It is stuffy and I find it is not good for my nerves and so I will not do that kind of work," what will happen unless there is somewhere the power of assignment? And I know no more appropriate person to make assignments than the President of the High Court. There would be something in Deputy Johnson's suggestion if assignments were left to me. I am notoriously corrupt and partisan and might be inclined to do the kind of thing the Deputy is suggesting. Here we say that assignment is to be made by the President of the High Court who is responsible for seeing that the work of that court is carried out.
Would the Minister say whether the Rules of Court are likely to be introduced before this Bill passes so that we may know whether the other lacuna has been filled?
I am glad that question has been asked as it enables me to clear up the matter of the Rules of Court and their relation to this Bill. I was in this position, a rather peculiar position, and I ask Deputies to try and appreciate the fact that this Bill could not be framed until the Rules of Court were in draft. That took a long time. The Committees could only meet in week-ends as they were mostly working judges, justices and professional men, and the drafting of the Rules, which is a very technical business, had to be very carefully and thoroughly discussed. The Court Officers Bill could not be framed until the draft rules were in existence and until we knew what the general framework was going to be. The rules themselves cannot be put before the Dáil and Seanad until the Court Officers Bill is law. The rules deal with a variety of offices which will be only created by the Bill, and I could not bring rules before the Dáil and Seanad in which an officer is mentioned when there is in fact no such officer in existence, so that while the drafting of the Bill had to await the Rules of Court I had to know what they were going to be like. The actual laying of the rules before the Dáil and Seanad must await the passage of that Bill as otherwise we would be talking about approving rules which refer to offices which were not statutory and which had no existence in law. The matter, therefore, is not just as obvious as it looks. Criticisms of the delay of the Rules of Court are easy and plentiful, but there are many sorts of reasons for that delay. There are administrative reasons. The drafting of an important Bill had to await these rules. I have them now in my office exactly in the form in which they will come before the Dáil and Seanad, but I cannot put them before the Dáil and Seanad until this important Bill has been passed by both Houses.
That will mean by Easter next probably.
Yes, probably March or April next.
Does that apply to each of the three courts?
Yes. It applies to the District Courts and the Circuit Courts.
We heard from the Minister that the Rules of Court are dependent on a Bill not yet before us, and that the Bill not yet before us is dependent on the Rules of Court. That is a nice problem. I think we would like to get an assurance from the Minister that this new Bill coming along will be put in the forefront of urgent administrative measures. We are impatiently awaiting the Rules of Court, and we would like that any obstruction in their way would be removed.
There are ten or twelve Bills that I would like to bring before the Dáil on a certain date and get them through. The Rules of Court are urgent, but urgency is a relevant matter. I think the reasons I have given are sound and ought to be satisfactory. We cannot even commence the consideration of the Court Officers Bill until the Committee have reported on the question of the Rules of Court. The Court Officers Bill will be introduced immediately on the reassembling of the Dáil after the Christmas Recess. When that is through the Rules which are now in existence will be placed before the two Houses, and they cannot be placed before that. There are Bills, such as the Jury Bill, which are of greater necessity than the Bill now passing, and which I would like to get through very quickly. There is also the matter of a permanent Bill for the execution of Court decrees. That is an important measure which I would like to get through, but I think that possibly this discussion has little relevance to Section 3. I have given as fully as I can to Deputy Johnson the reasons underlying the insertion of that provision, and I am afraid that I cannot meet the point of view he urges.
Might I suggest to the Minister that the Bill he indicates as coming before the House at the earliest possible moment after the adjournment should be supplemented by lodging the Rules of Court at the same time, so that we might have both together?
I will consider that.
Section 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 4.
The Central Criminal Court shall have and may exercise every jurisdiction in criminal matter for the time being vested in the High Court.
I move:—
In page 2, line 30, after the word "Court" to add the words:—"and every person lawfully brought before the Central Criminal Court for trial in exercise of any such jurisdiction may be indicted before and tried and sentenced by that Court wherever it may be sitting in like manner in all respects as if the crime with which such person is charged had been committed in the county or county borough in which the said Court is sitting."
I move:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Clause (iv.) of Section 36 of the Principal Act is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the sittings of the Central Criminal Court shall be held (with and subject to a general power of adjournment) at such times and in such places as the President of the High Court shall from time to time direct.
(2) Every application to the Central Criminal Court in relation to a matter pending or formerly pending in that court may, if and when that court is not sitting, be made to and heard and disposed of by any judge of the High Court.
Both these sub-sections are intended to make for the smooth working of the courts, and to be for the general public convenience.
I think Deputy Cooper is somewhere in the House, but as he is not present perhaps the Minister would say whether the amendment in his name is acceptable or not?
I do not think anyone in the absence of Deputy Cooper could explain exactly what is meant by the amendment. I think it is an elaborate sarcasm, and in the absence of some enlightenment and some very sound reasons I do not propose to accept it. We were quite unable to see anything in the amendment but an elaborate sarcasm, and we were awaiting with interest the Deputy's explanation. In his absence I do not think we could proceed with the amendment.
I am afraid I am unable to supply the deficiency.
I move:—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
The cases which may be disposed of by the Central Criminal Court at any particular sitting of the Court shall include all cases in which the accused person is, at the beginning of or at any time during that sitting, in custody in the county or county borough in which the sitting is being held and is awaiting trial by the Circuit Court.
I will take steps to enable me to take the Fifth Stage also on that day.