Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Feb 1945

Vol. 95 No. 18

Committee on Finance. - Vote 25—Law Charges.

An tAire Airgeadais (Seán T. O Ceallaigh)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim breise ná raghaidh thar £8,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta 1945, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an Árd-Aighne, etc., agus chun Costas Coir-Phróiseacht agus Dlí-Mhuirear eile, ar a n-áirítear Deontas i gCabhair do Chostais áirithe is iníoctha amach as Rátaí Aitiúla do réir Reachta.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £8,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1945, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Attorney-General, etc., and 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.

It is estimated that the original provision for the year—£11,000—will be substantially exceeded and that £16,500 will be required to meet charges in respect of fees to counsel. Expenditure incurred during the first nine months of the present financial year— i.e., to the 31st December, 1944—was £12,200. The expenditure is largely outside administrative control, depending as it does on the number and magnitude of cases in which counsel have to be retained. When the original Estimate was being framed it was not anticipated that the number of criminal cases of a major kind would continue at the high level which obtained in 1943-44. Actually, however, the number of murder trials has increased and there has not been any appreciable abatement in the number of other types of criminal cases, particularly those arising out of the prevailing emergency conditions, coming before the courts. It was, in fact, found necessary to have an additional judge of the circuit court sitting in Dublin for portion of the year to deal with the unprecedentedly heavy list of criminal cases.

It is estimated that a further sum of £2,500, in addition to the £6,500 originally provided, will be required to meet these expenses. This excess is due mainly to the following factors: (1) The increase in the number of lengthy murder trials; (2) the considerable number of prosecutions brought under Emergency Powers Orders— those taken at the instance of the Minister for Supplies numbered 2,350 in 1944; and (3) a heavy increase in the amount of costs awarded against the State.

Those, Sir, are the particulars in regard to this sum of £8,000 for which we are asking.

Dr. O'Higgins

It would strike one, Sir, that the fact that we are being asked for this very large sum by way of a Supplementary Estimate shows something very faulty in the manner of estimation of expenses. It may be that the explanation for the large sum asked for is partly due, as would appear from the Minister's statement, to the fact that we had an unusually large number of lengthy trials for major crimes, mainly murder cases, but I think that the general public is somewhat disturbed at the number of cases in which verdicts of the courts have been subsequently upset. It is rather disturbing to think that a man is tried for his life, found guilty, and that then the verdict is quashed. I think there should be some tightening up of the whole court procedure rather than have, at this stage in our history, major flaws in the procedure, when a man's life is at stake.

Now, granting that portion of the sum can be explained on the grounds that a number of these major cases could not have been anticipated except that we knew what was in a murderer's mind, the other explanation given by the Minister was the number of cases in contravention of the Emergency Orders. I understand that there is a very great number of such cases, but those have been outstanding for years. The Minister for Supplies has told us here, time and again, when we asked him about delays in having certain cases brought to trial, that there was a regular procession of those cases and that the courts were dealing with them as quickly as they could. Now, if that is the case, there should have been no under-estimation, since the cases were already lined up when the estimate was being prepared. I suggest that it is not satisfactory to have a full-dress debate annually in this House on the Estimates, following on the Budget, as to the cost of the machinery of State for the coming year. I have said that on previous occasions, and I think we should be put in a position of entering into such a debate with the knowledge that the full figure was there and that there would not be a single head of expenditure in connection with which a Minister would have to come back, within the financial year, to ask for a Supplementary Vote. I should like to see a tightening up on both sides in regard to this matter, but I have no objection to giving the Minister what he wants.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It used to be the case that in connection with almost every Estimate in the Book of Estimates there was over-estimation. Indeed, over a number of years, it was the practice of the Minister for Finance to take account in his Budget for a not inconsiderable sum of over-estimation, in previous years. I think that, in connection with certain Estimates, that practice goes on to a certain extent even still. I do not like it, and since I became Minister for Finance I have been trying to tighten up, to put on the screw, and cut to the bone everywhere, because if there is, say, £1,000,000 of over-estimation in the Book of Estimates and, therefore, in the Budget for the year, it means that you have to provide in taxation for that sum. I do not say that I should prefer to see under-estimation rather than over-estimation. I do not think that, from the point of view of satisfactory accountancy, either one or the other is very good. We have to get as near as we can to the actual sum required. Luckily, that is done in some cases, but probably—I cannot say for certain at the moment—when the Vote for Law Charges came up to the Department of Finance last year, the sum asked for, being in excess of the previous year, an effort was made to cut them down and to say: "Oh, well, the war will be over and there will not be so many of these charges in connection with the Department of Supplies, and we might as well take a chance". Possibly, that is what happened—I do not say that it did happen—and that we cut down too much, and afterwards found that the number of prosecutions in connection with the Department of Supplies had increased instead of decreasing.

In addition, the matter, to which Deputy O'Higgins referred, also arose, where you had cases of a major kind— of the most important kind, such as murder—in the Criminal Courts, and where verdicts of guilty had been found and afterwards there were appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal which resulted in the setting aside of those verdicts. I agree with the Deputy that that is entirely unsatisfactory and has given rise to a great deal of criticism. Where responsibility lies I cannot say. May be, even if I were a lawyer, I could not say. It is not a very satisfactory position from any point of view. It is not very satisfactory from the point of view of the Minister for Finance and, least of all, for a person in the dock. There are the facts. I do not know if any tightening up that might be done in this House could change the position.

Dr. O'Higgins

I do not suggest that we could do it here.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I entirely agree with the Deputy. The situation, as we know it, up to recently has not been satisfactory. Probably it would not be wise to say any more about it now.

Question put and agreed to.