Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 6

ORDUITHE AN LAE. ORDERS OF THE DAY. - VOTE 26—LAW CHARGES.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim na raghaidh thar £45,388 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun Costaisí Coir-Phróiseacht agus Dlí-Mhuirireacha eile, maraon le Deontas i gcabhair do Chostaisí áirithe is iníoctha amach as Rátaí Aitiúla do réir Reachta.

That a sum not exceeding £45,388 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates.

This Estimate, if we take out of account an Exchequer advance which was made last year in connection with the deposit which was required to be made in the matter of the American litigation, is very little changed. The increase in sub-head A is due to the increments of salary and the employment of an additional copying typist in the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office which was necessitated by the additional pressure of work. With regard to sub-head B, an assistant solicitor was appointed in the Treasury Solicitor's Office, and the number of clerical officers was increased from four to five. There is a reduction in the amounts for clerical assistance. The Chief State Solicitor's Office is concerned mainly with the question of prosecutions. The Treasury's Solicitor's Office does the work which arises out of the activities of the Commissioners of Public Works, the investigation of titles and the preparation of deeds charges and so forth in reference to land improvement and other loans and in the recovery of arrears. He does the legal work involved in awards under the Drainage Act and the legal work arising out of the provision of accommodation and the acquisition of premises for the Gárda Síochána. He also does the work which arises in connection with the Valuation Office and the Quit Rent Office. What I have said indicates roughly the line of division between the legal work that exists between the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Office. There is a reduction in the provision for Under-Sheriffs owing to vacancies arising in the Office of Under-Sheriff in Wexford, Offaly and Waterford not having been filled. The duty of these offices will be discharged by the County Registrars in accordance with the provision of the Court Officers Act of 1926.

The provision for the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses is down. The provision in this sub-head is mainly for recoupment to county and county borough councils in respect of expenses of prosecutors and witnesses at the Circuit Court and Central Criminal Court in cases of felony, which are a statutory charge on the local rates. The provision here is more than the normal provision and includes a substantial element of arrears which have not been discharged. The fact that these arrears exist is largely due to claims not having been made by the local authorities in proper time. It is anticipated the normal amount instead of being £10,000 will be between £5,000 and £6,000 a year. Included in the total figure of £11,500 there are other small items, such as the payment of subsistence allowances to witnesses in criminal cases in the District Courts and the calling in of medical practitioners in what the Gárda Síochána believe to be cases that may prove to be criminal cases, and payments to architects and engineers and other experts for the preparation of maps, plans, and models, and for giving expert evidence in connection with prosecutions.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

The fees of counsel include not merely prosecutions in the higher courts, but also fees payable for appearances for the State in departmental cases. Of course, the great bulk of the fees is in connection with the criminal cases. As regards sub-head F, which shows an increase of £1,490, the estimate is based on the expenditure of 1925-26 and 1926-27. Under this sub-head are included the various expenses connected with juries. When jurors are locked up for the night, vouched expenditure is allowed to cover the expenses of each juryman. the sum not exceeding one guinea. This covers all hotel expenses and other expenses in connection with the detention of jurymen not exceeding a period of 24 hours. It also provides for the provision of meals for jurymen in other cases where they are not locked up for the night, but where the court orders meals. It makes provision for the reports of judgments and the transcript of evidence, and also provides the money out of which counsel and solicitor are assigned, where they are assigned by the judge, to defend a poor prisoner indicted for murder. Provision is also made in this sub-head for the defence of prisoners in the pretruce period in cases where the cost of the defence was paid out of old Dáil funds; that is, cases which might have involved a capital sentence.

With regard to sub-head G—expenses of litigation about Dáil funds— I am not yet able to indicate to the Dáil the amount of the total expenses of the litigation. So far about £9,000 has been paid, and other bills have been received for sums of £2,000, and additional bills will be received. In addition to the £9,000 which has already been paid out of voted moneys, a sum of something like five thousand dollars was paid out of the old Dáil funds prior to the winding up of that fund. The expenses actually paid so far in the American action are £7,074, and in the action at home, £2,023. There was paid on the 13th January, 1923, out of the old Dáil funds, a sum of five thousand five hundred and ninety-eight dollars. I do not know what that represented in pounds at the time. There was also the sum in reference to which a vote was taken last year, of fifty thousand dollars, and £11,167 13s. 11d. had to be lodged in court as a security. It was stated that would be repaid.

It would seem to be more appropriate that these charges should be within the purview of the Minister for Justice. I do not know how far I would be entitled to direct the Minister's attention to questions of policy. I do not know how far the Minister for Finance would be prepared to answer questions of policy. There are two matters I would like to refer to and they come under sub-head C. and sub-head E. As the Minister has said, there is a reduction in the amount payable to under-sheriffs for the reason that on either the death or resignation of certain under-sheriffs, their work has to be done by County Registrars. I have received complaints from the County Registrars of the excessive amount of work they have been asked to do in this regard, especially during the election period when they had to undertake the whole work in connection with the register. I do not know how far the Minister is in a position to say whether it is the intention of the Government in future to adopt and continue this policy of asking the County Registrars to do this extra work, especially without any extra remuneration. I know that their time has been very fully occupied. There is one instance I have in mind where the County Registrar had to attend in court at the time the Circuit Court was on, and he also had to attend to this work entailed by the election which occurred at the same time.

Whatever Department is in charge of this matter should, I think, be prepared to investigate it. The other question is one in regard not to the amount of the fees that are being paid to counsel under sub-head (E), but rather to the policy which has been adopted regarding State prosecutions. Again I say I think there is a difficulty in dealing with this matter, because it seems to me to come within the purview of the Minister for Justice.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy will have an ample opportunity of raising that matter when the Estimate comes up.

Will I have the opportunity?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

I cannot see where I will have the opportunity, but if I am assured by the Minister that I will be entitled to raise this question of policy on the Estimate for the Department of Justice, of course I am prepared to postpone it.

I do not think so.

On a point of order, the Minister's salary is not on this Vote, and that will have to be taken, so that I take it that would give an opportunity for a matter of policy to be dealt with?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

I take it, then, that I would be in order when the question of the salary of the Minister for Justice comes up?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

I do not think so.

There seems to be some difficulty about the matter, and I would like to know what the position is.

On a point of order, is not a Deputy entitled to criticise a particular work of a Department on the Vote for the Minister's office and salary?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think so.

Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word on this matter. This Vote is accounted for by the Minister for Finance, because I think he has nothing to do with it. The Attorney-General answers to the President, and the President is the Minister who would speak on anything affecting the office of the Attorney-General or the office of the Parliamentary Draftsman. So far as County Registrars and under-sheriffs are concerned, the Minister for Justice would speak for them. Perhaps I need not express an opinion on the point of order, but I just mention that what may be the reason why this is accounted for by the Department of Finance is that it involves a considerable amount of expenditure. The officers whose salaries are provided for are responsible to different Ministers. Anything that has to do with the Attorney-General's office would, I think, be answered by the President, and perhaps might be raised on the President's Vote.

I am rather at sea. I seem to be getting different opinions from various quarters. I think it only goes to show the difficulty one is in when endeavouring to try to keep in order on a matter like this. These are law charges, and they are made in regard to certain acts or actions, the policy of which I am desirous of questioning. If I can get no assurance that I would be in order in raising this on the Vote for the Department of Justice, then the only course open to me is to proceed now.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I give the Deputy the assurance that he will be allowed to raise it on that Vote or the Vote for the President's office.

I take that then, and I am quite satisfied.

Under sub-head D the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses at assizes, Circuit Courts and District Courts for the year 1927-28 are given as £11,500, while last year the figure was £10,000. That represents an increase of £1,500 on this item alone for this year. I desire to bring to the notice of the Minister that there are a large number of small and insignificant cases returned by the District Justices for trial to the Circuit Courts where there is no hope of a conviction being secured and where you have a large number of professional and other witnesses brought to give evidence. This occurs not only in the county I come from, but in other counties. We look upon it as nothing short of a public scandal to see twopence-half-penny cases that could be easily decided by the District Justice, if he had the power to do it under the District Court Rules, sent forward for trial to the Circuit Courts with an army of witnesses brought, say, from Inishowen to Lifford and from Rosses to Donegal and other parts of the county. All this money could be saved if reasonable commonsense was exercised, and if our suggestions were adopted at the time that the District Court rules were going through this House and before they were finally approved of. The accused persons sent forward for trial in these twopence-halfpenny cases are invariably discharged or the jury finds them not guilty. The whole prosecution from beginning to end is not worth anything like that. What is happening is that the ratepayers' money is being squandered in this way. This matter was brought to the notice of this House on two or three occasions by Deputies on these benches, but we got very little satisfaction and very little courtesy. We alleged and we asserted at the time that adequate time was not given for the discussion of these District and Circuit Court rules. The flaws are now beginning to be discovered. This is a very serious matter and one that is of very much importance to the taxpayers of the country. It is something that the Minister should take a note of and see if anything can be done or have the law amended.

Is the Deputy aware that the Circuit Court rules are not in operation yet?

Mr. WHITE

I know that the District Court Rules are in operation.

I think that perhaps permission should probably be allowed by the Ceann Comhairle to have this question raised on the Vote for the Department of Justice. I certainly am not able to give the Deputy any satisfaction in regard to the matter. I think what Deputy Redmond first raised in regard to the county registrars might be raised on the salary of the Minister for Justice. I might say that the intention is that the county registrars should do the work hitherto done by the under-sheriffs. I think they all understood that on their appointments: that they would have to do that work as vacancies in the ranks of the under-sheriffs occurred. It may be that great difficulty was experienced by these officers in doing their normal work during the election, because of the extra duties that fell on them, but elections occur comparatively rarely and one would not appoint an undersheriff simply in order that a county registrar might be relieved once in five years of these duties, which are so difficult to discharge during an election time.

That is only one instance.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share