Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1943

Vol. 89 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Circuit Court.

Mr. Boland

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim breise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar crioch an 31adh Márta, 1943, chun Tuarastail agus Liúntaisí agus Costaisí Oifigeach Cúirte Cuarda, Leas-Bhreithiún Cuarda agus Udarásanna Clarathachta Aitiúla airithe; Costaisí Taistil Breithiún Cuarda; agus na gCostaisí alos Liostaí Vótálaithe agus Giúrithe d'Athscrúdú (Uimh. 27 de 1926, etc.).

That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending March 31st, 1943, for the Salaries, Allowances and Expenses of Circuit Court Officers, Deputy Circuit Judges and certain local Registering Authorities; the Travelling Expenses of Circuit Judges; and the Expenses of Revision of Voters and Jurors Lists (No. 27 of 1926, etc.).

This is merely a token Vote which has become necessary owing to an excess on the gross Vote brought about by increases in expenditure on sub-heads A and B. The additional sum required for sub-head A is £500 to meet the increase in the cost-of-living bonus. For sub-head B a sum of £450 is required to meet excess expenditure due to the increase in the cost of travelling and subsistence rates for judges, county registrars, court stenographers and judges' criers.

In the ordinary course, the excess could be provided for out of savings on the various sub-heads, but during the year the duties of under-sheriffs were taken over by county registrars in four counties, and savings were absorbed in providing for extra staffs for that work in Circuit Court offices.

There has, however, been an increase under sub-head E—Appropriations-in-Aid—of fees received on foot of the execution of court orders and Land Commission warrants out of which the whole amount of the excess can be paid.

I have been waiting for some time for an appropriate occasion to raise a point which does not affect a very large number of people, but which is of some importance in the administration of justice, particularly in the Circuit Courts. Not only have I personal knowledge of this matter, but representations have been made to me in connection with it. It is the question of providing for the comfort and the expenses of jurors who are summoned to serve on juries and who have to come to court under considerable difficulty in present circumstances. I am aware that an arrangement has been made to meet the situation by a reduction in the number of jurors on a jury from 12 to seven, but that does not solve the problem. Very often a case which a country jury is trying does not finish until the last public vehicle has left the town, with the result that jurors are left on the streets for the night. No provision, financial or otherwise, is made for their accommodation, although some of them have come considerable distances.

I can give an instance of what happens in my own constituency. The criminal trials are heard in Wexford town and some of the jurors come from the Wicklow border and from the borders of Waterford. Even in the ordinary course, it is very difficult to get from one end of the county to the other, and this is particularly the case now. My suggestion is that some arrangements should be made by the Department to ensure that a juror who has served on a jury all day will have some accommodation provided for him at the end of the day's work, or, in the alternative, that some method of bringing him home that night will be provided. The matter is urgent not only in my constituency, but in all the country constituencies where the jurors have to come long distances. This was a matter of importance in normal times and a grievance in respect of it existed in normal times, and the Minister can readily understand that the grievance is multiplied a hundred fold now.

When the question of juries is being considered, it is high time that the question of providing jurors' expenses should be considered. Some time ago, when the Courts of Justice Act was being discussed here, I tried to have an amendment inserted providing for increased allowances for jurors. I think it should have been done in that case. I do not know of any section of the people who are as harshly treated as jurors are at present. Nobody is asked to spend his own money in doing public service, except a juror, who has to go to the court whether he wishes or not and no matter how urgent his own business may be, and, as the previous Deputy has pointed out, the question of what time would be suitable for such people is not considered. I know that many jurors have been summoned to appear at a certain hour. In order to be there at that hour, they have to leave the day before. If they wait for a bus or the ordinary travelling facilities, they are told they are late and are summoned on that day three months again. That has happened to my knowledge on several occasions. No consideration is extended to these people. I think it is time that their expenses were met, which would solve the whole problem. The courts might then, for reasons of economy, consider calling these people on the basis of the travelling facilities available. In any case, their out-of-pocket expenses should be provided. That is not going to corrupt our courts.

The matter raised by Deputies Esmonde and McGovern may be of great public interest, but they are not quite in order in connection with the particular sub-heads of this Supplementary Estimate.

It is a matter for the Minister for Justice to consider.

Mr. Boland

I might say that, in addition to providing for seven jurors, the Order referred to by Deputy Esmonde also provided, where necessary, for the limitation of the area from which jurors for the Circuit Court may be drawn. I do not know if Deputies are aware of that. Because of a realisation of the difficulties in respect of travel, to which Deputy Esmonde referred, it was decided to give power to limit the area. I think the Order sets out that the Circuit Court shall have power to call jurors from a limited area, and to reduce the number to seven, with the object of preventing as much hardship as possible.

On the question of expenses, I know that very small payments are made and then only in civil cases, but I take it that the theory is that jury service is voluntary and always has been voluntary, and that, if there was any question of payment, the whole voluntary idea would disappear. I am giving that as my own view, but I think that must have been the basis of it. I think that regard is had to the circumstances of the people called and I imagine that jurors are not called indiscriminately. I did not expect the point to be raised, but I do know that the object of reducing the number of jurors and restricting the area was to avoid any hardship there might be in people being unable to get home at night. I think the cases mentioned by Deputy McGovern probably occurred before this Order was made. Whether or not the situation has been met by this Order, I cannot say, but I shall look into the matter. I do not know what authority we have to increase allowances, but I shall look into it and see if any easement can be afforded.

The Minister is wrong in saying that jury service is voluntary.

Mr. Boland

I meant in the sense that it is unpaid.

The position is that, if you do not go, you will be fined £3.

Mr. Boland

The jurors are compelled to serve, but they serve on an unpaid basis. Perhaps I should have said "honorary".

There is one thing which might make matters easier so far as the jurors on the list at present are concerned. There is at present a great need for a wider extension of the number of jurors on the list. So far as I can see from any registers I know, nobody ever becomes a juror unless his father was a juror, and in the Circuit Court in Cork I have seen time and again, when a jury was being called, a number of people claiming exemption on the ground that they were over age. They had been left on the list, but are then wiped off. The jury system at one time was the privilege of a certain class, and, so far as I can see, the position has remained that only landed people and business people of a certain type succeeded their fathers as jurors. We never seem to get any new names and I think there are a number of legal men in the House who must know that.

Mr. Boland

We can have the point looked into.

Even a restriction of the area to 15 miles does not help very much. My point is that from towns like Wexford—and I am sure the same applies to other towns—the last public conveyance has probably gone long before the trial has finished, and there is no way for jurors to get home, unless they hire a car to come into the town and keep it there for the day.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share