I move the following amendment:—
In amendment No. 2, in sub-section (6) of the proposed new sub-section to add after the word "party" in paragraph (a) the words "except where the Judge decides to exclude such names."
It is of interest to examine the history of the controversy which has arisen over the question concerning a hearing in camera. It was first suggested by the Poor Law Commission. They recommended that cases of this sort should be taken in camera. Here is the whole of Paragraph 258 from the Report of that Commission: —
"We recommend that the District Court be given power to make an Affiliation Order on the application of the mother, and that the Board of Health be also given power to apply for an Order, if the mother and child are in receipt of public assistance. All cases of this character should, we think, if possible, be tried in a Special Court by the District Justice without the presence of the Press or public. When the mother is young and friendless, the District Justice should have power to arrange for a suitable woman to accompany her to Court and remain with her while she is giving evidence."
That recommendation has been carried out almost entirely by the Minister, except the one item about the exclusion of the public and Press. When the Bill was introduced a considerable amount of opinion was expressed in the public Press by institutions and social workers to the effect that cases of this sort should be tried in camera. The main argument put forward was that in cases of girls who were first offenders — persons who had such a sense of shame in the matter that they did not like coming into court — it would be very difficult to get them to come to court at all if their names were to appear in the Press. On the strength of that argument, this House, which is fairly strongly in favour of trials being held in public courts, decided, despite the eloquence of the Minister, in favour of the amendment, directing that the cases be heard in camera, and it was carried. The opponents of the amendment, having been driven out of the front door, came in by the back, and this amendment, coming down from the Seanad, really defeats the object of the in camera clause because the names are mentioned. It is essential that it should be possible, in some way or other, to exclude the names. I would much prefer to see the amendment withdrawn altogether.
If we cannot defeat the Seanad amendment then at least we ought to try to make it possible that such cases shall be tried in camera, and for that reason I put down two amendments. I put them down separately on purpose because each of them involves a different principle. The original sub-section in the Bill reads as follows: "All applications to the District Court and all cases under this Act shall be heard in camera, and publication of such cases shall be limited to the statement of the fact that an affiliation order has been granted in a particular court against a person whose name and address shall be included." The amendment is a lengthy one. I need not go into in detail, but the part of it which I wish to deal with first of all is as follows: "On the hearing of any case under this Act in the District Court or on appeal in the Circuit Court, the Judge shall order the exclusion from the court of all persons... except the Press." Then under sub-section (6) it lays down that "it shall not be lawful to print or publish anything concerning the case except the following." The first of the exceptions is the names of the parties, the second is the court in which, or the Judge before whom, the proceedings were tried, and the names of the solicitors and counsel professionally engaged, etc.; the third is a concise statement of the charges, the defence and counter-charges; the fourth is particulars of any point of law arising, and the fifth, the decision of the court and the observations of the Judge.
I think if all these details are published, certainly in the country, it is tantamount to publishing everything about the case. For that reason I regard the whole amendment as unsatisfactory, but in case we cannot defeat the amendment as a whole, we want to reduce the mischief it may do to a minimum so as to make it possible for these persons to avail of the court in some shape or form. We propose to amend the first of the exceptions, that is to say, that the names of the parties shall be published. The first of my amendments is that the names of the parties shall be published except where the Judge decides to exclude such names. This gives a power of discretion to the Judge, and it is a type of case which requires a certain amount of discretion. It implies a considerable amount of prudence and ability on the part of the District Justice.
I think the Minister will agree that there has been on the whole no dissatisfaction found with the District Courts in the country and that they are quite competent to deal with cases of this kind and to exercise certain discretion, because it is not merely the question of the application of a rigid law. I have been told that in a great many cases the litigants as a result of the proceedings get married in cases of this sort where the responsibility is brought home to the parties. It may not always be a happy marriage, but that is not an argument against attempting to get the parties to repair the damage that has been done and to prevent persons from becoming second and third offenders. By having full discretion to exclude the names, the Judge has a better opportunity of getting questions like this settled in the best possible way. Then the persons who are not hardened sinners are more likely to come into Court. If you insist on keeping the names in, you will be legislating for the hardened types of people who are indifferent as to whether the names are published or not and who may very likely make use of the Bill for blackmailing purposes, because, of course, the greater the publicity the greater the possibility and the value of blackmail. Then, again, this principle of affiliation orders is new to the law. It is not exactly a criminal proceeding. Formerly the only action that could be taken was either criminal proceedings or the action was such as to be much closer to criminal proceedings than this. This is somewhat in the nature of civil proceedings. It amounts to an action for damages. There will be — or at least I hope there will — a different atmosphere in dealing with these cases than in dealing with the ordinary trial for seduction.
Of the two amendments which I propose, the first involves the principle of giving the judge an opportunity to decide. It may be found in the course of applying the new principle contained in the Act that it is a far better thing to have the case tried in camera or from experience the judge may find that it is a good thing in first offences to have them tried in camera or that afterwards it may be a severe punishment to have publicity. For that reason, I think the Minister would be well advised to accept this principle in order that the judge may have the amplest opportunity to find out from experience the best way to handle cases of this kind. On the bigger issue, the principle upon which the Minister has been standing pat all through the controversy — namely the publicity of the court — we are in agreement in general, but we are in disagreement with it in particular. For instance, the Minister was entirely against upholding that principle on the Juries Act because he held that, under certain temporary circumstances, if you like——