Juries Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. In the Electoral (Dáil Éireann and Local Authorities) Act, which was enacted earlier this year, the qualifying date and certain other dates in connection with the preparation of voters' lists were altered. In consequence, it has become necessary to alter the corresponding dates prescribed in the Juries Act, 1927, as regards the preparation of jurors' lists. This is done by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill.

The opportunity presented by the preparation of the Bill has been availed of to make a few other minor amendments of the law relating to juries. These new provisions have been explained in the memorandum which has been circulated to Deputies with the Bill and I propose to read these brief explanations merely in order that they may be on record in the Official Report of the Debates.

Section 5.—Under the present law, as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the 1927 Act, juries in certain classes of cases are not permitted to separate until the trial has concluded. When the jury happens to consist of persons of different religions and the trial is prolonged over a Sunday or Church holy-day, the jurors must either attend together at the same religious service or not attend any religious service. The refusal of any one juror to attend with the 11 others makes it impossible for them to attend either. The object of the section is to allow each juror to attend whatever religious service he desires to attend, or not to attend any service, without thereby inconveniencing the other jurors.

Section 6.—At present, if a juror falls ill during the course of a trial, he may be discharged and the trial may proceed and a verdict found unless the judge otherwise directs or the number of jurors is reduced below ten (Section 64 of the 1927 Act). There is, however, no power to discharge a juror whose wife or child or other near relation may have died or become seriously ill. This might involve serious hardship or distress for the parties concerned. It is accordingly proposed in Section 6 to give a discretionary power to the judge to discharge a juror in the circumstances mentioned. Sub-section (2) makes provision corresponding to that in Section 64 of the 1927 Act for the continuation of the trial despite the discharge of a juror.

Section 7. — This section deals with the summoning of jurors and any duties subsequent to the summoning in civil cases in the High Court.

At present these duties are divided between the Master of the High Court and the under-sheriff for the County of Dublin. It is considered simpler and better to entrust these duties to the Registrar of the High Court who deals generally with jury trials under the direction of the President of the High Court.

Section 8.—This section deals with the rare case of juries required in lunacy matters in the High Court. The section proposes to entrust the summoning, etc., of jurors in such cases to the Registrar of Wards of Court. The only change which this involves, as compared with the existing position, is to relieve the under-sheriff for County Dublin of the duty of summoning such of those jurors as reside in the county.

Neither Section 8 nor Section 9 will affect the selection of jurors who are to be summoned: they will continue to be selected from the general body of persons who are enrolled as jurors for the City and County of Dublin in the same manner as at present.

Mr. Cogan

I agree that the provisions of this Bill are desirable. It is certainly desirable that jurors should be discharged in the event of illness amongst their families, and it is also, of course, desirable that provision be made for the attendance at religious services of people of different religions. One thing which should be considered is the hardship which jury service, by its very nature, imposes upon citizens of this country, particularly in large counties, where jurors have to travel very considerable distances in order to attend court when summoned and have to remain away from their business for a very considerable time. Citizens of this State are only too glad and too willing to contribute towards the administration of justice and it is the wish of every fair-minded person that the jury system should be preserved, but there is growing up amongst farmers and business people a very strong feeling that they are being treated very unfairly.

At the present time—perhaps it is due to the advance of more liberal ideas in regard to the treatment of people who are called upon to give service to the State—we find that nearly everybody who contributes or assists in the administration of justice is compensated. Witnesses and all officials of the courts are given remuneration, at least of some kind. The juror, however, receives only one form of remuneration, a fee of 5/- in the event of his being called upon to act in a civil case. In the event of his being summoned to court but not required to act in a case, he receives no compensation whatever. In the event of his being called upon to act in a criminal case he receives no compensation, except here in the City of Dublin where, on murder trials, provision is made for the accommodation of juries. In the County Wicklow it takes almost two days to get to the town of Wicklow from West Wicklow for a juror to attend a court and answer his name. That juror may not be required to give service, but he is taken away from his business for a very considerable time. In a Bill such as this it should be possible, first of all, to select from the panel of jurors a more limited number than is summoned at present. At the present time, a very large number is summoned to the county court and from that number a small selection is made and the rest are sent about their business. It should be possible to select the names of the jurors from the list with, perhaps, a few over, in order to allow for non-attendances or some accidental cause which might debar a juror from serving.

Provision should also be made in this Bill for reasonable compensation or out-of-pocket expenses in respect of loss sustained by jurors in performing this important duty. It does not make for confidence or satisfaction in the present system of administering justice when there is no compensation. Certainly, farmers all over the country are complaining very bitterly about the system. In many cases, jury service is demanded in the busiest seasons of the year—very often in the spring and in the harvest season. During the spring months, farmers are often summoned away for three or four days when they cannot afford to be away from their farms. The average farmer is in an entirely different position from the big business man or the big employer, as he cannot make provision for his business being carried on in his absence. Very often, the work on the farm is dependent on the farmer being present with his two or three employees. The small farmer who has no employees at all and very little financial resources cannot make any provision for his absence and that means the work is not done. Those who know this country know that our very variable climate allows sometimes only two or three days, during a critical period of the year, for doing the most important items of work on the farm. I ask the Minister to revise this Bill if possible, so as to make provision for some compensation to jurors and also to provide against having to call too great a number to the county court.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to support Deputy Cogan in regard to this Bill. It affects rural communities very vitally, as certain courts very often are held at the busiest part of the spring season and in the summer and autumn seasons, when it is often inconvenient for a farmer to absent himself from the farming operations for two or three days. I think there is a good case for giving jurors a subsistence allowance and providing for out-of-pocket expenses and, over and above that, something for the loss of time from their own operations. Members of various agricultural and vocational committees and members of other public bodies throughout the country get subsistence and travelling allowance and there seems no reason for discriminating against jurors. Nobody wishes to end the service and everybody appreciates the necessity for the maintenance of the system, but in view of the tendency to compensate all classes of public representatives to-day for their loss of time and for travelling and so on, I think there is a good case for payment of subsistence and travelling allowances to jurors.

Mr. Dillon

Some matters arise in connection with this Juries Bill which call for comment. Under some one of the Emergency Powers Orders or under an amendment of the law, the traditional jury of 12 has given way to a jury of seven.

Mr. Boland

Under an Emergency Powers Order.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister not think the time is approaching when that arrangement ought to be ended? I am always profoundly apprehensive that an arrangement which is arrived at for an emergency will become so familiar to the public mind that it will fail to realise the importance of returning to the old procedure as soon as the circumstances permit. To the average person, seven good men and true are as good as 12 good men and true but, in fact, long user has demonstrated that 12 men in the jury box have functioned down through the centuries as a pretty effective bar to injustice. It might transpire, over a protracted period, that seven would prove to be sufficient, but we have no reason to believe that they would. If a man has an important cause joined with another party, it is necessary to send him out of the court, not only with justice but conviced that he has had justice. I understand that, in criminal cases, defendants can insist on a jury of 12 or, perhaps, it is only in the case of indictable offences that they can insist on a jury of 12. It is of vital importance, if any person's liberty or reputation is at stake, that we should restore to him the right to stipulate for a jury of 12 men; and I think the time has come when that right ought to be met.

With regard to the payment of jurors, I suppose it is a popular thing to suggest that anybody should be paid for doing anything. Indeed, I have a certain sympathy with Deputy Cogan and Deputy Coogan when they say that everybody is getting paid now for everything he or she does, so we might as well pay the jurors. If you fell and broke your leg in the street now you would nearly have to pay the man who lifts you up and puts you on a doorstep. That is the way the world is wagging and that type of thing is not peculiar to this country. It is not very laudable, but still, as Deputy Coogan says, if we pay the county councillors and T.D.s and members of agricultural committees and everybody else, I cannot quite see why jurors should be denied payment for the services they render.

I submit that jurors have a better claim for payment, for this reason. Nobody must become a member of a county council; if he does not want to discharge the duties of a councillor, he need not seek election. Nobody need become a member of Dáil Eireann and nobody need become a member of a committee of agriculture if he does not want to. But the juror must attend the court if he is summoned. Very considerable categories of persons in this community have been excluded from the obligation to do jury service. Clergymen are excluded and so also are doctors, barristers, solicitors, members of Dáil Eireann and members of a very wide number of professions. They are all exempted from jury service, with the result that the burden of jury service falls more heavily on the remaining categories of persons who are eligible than it would were every citizen obliged to undertake his share of the work. Therefore, the Minister might favourably consider giving the juror at least travelling expenses and subsistence expenses.

I do not see how he can resist the logic of the demand on behalf of jurors that they should receive a sum sufficient to pay a substitute to do the work from which they are taken away while serving on a jury. Conceive what it means to a man who is brought into a complicated criminal or civil case and is required to sit on a jury perhaps from 14 to 18 days. The material loss that such a man endures must be very heavy indeed. It is true that jurors who have that experience are exempted for a protracted period, but still they have a claim on the State and I cannot imagine that any section of the House would be prepared to maintain that they have not. If the claim is founded on justice, sooner or later it will be granted, and surely it is better to grant it before there is a row about it than to wait for the row and then give under duress what you have withheld until duress is evoked? Personally, I attach more importance to the restoration of juries to 12 than I do to compensation. I shall be grateful if the Minister will say something on that aspect.

Mr. Allen

I do not agree with Deputy Dillon or Deputy Coogan that it is necessary to pay juries for doing their duty. The jury system is a sort of insurance for the people of the country and the number of times an individual will be called, in a five-year period, to serve on a jury, is very small. The Minister has power under the Juries Act to make Orders as to the type of person who should serve on juries. I suggest he should arrange for a larger panel. The complaint could be made that the panel is too restricted and that far more persons in any constituency should be qualified to serve on juries. It is necessary to have a £50 or £60 valuation—some fairly high valuation—in order to qualify as a juror and many people are of the opinion that that is all wrong. There are different valuations in different counties for the purpose of jury service, so far as I am aware. I think the Minister should widen the panel and so allow more persons to become qualified to act as jurors. That would solve the problem.

The point about payment arose during the emergency, largely because of the difficulty of travelling. When there were normal transport facilities most towns were within convenient reach of jurors. It was possible for people liable to act on juries to get home each night. During the emergency persons acting as jurors were often two or three days away from their homes. I am talking about country areas now, areas quite distinct from the cities. People found it impossible to get motor transport to bring them to the areas where the courts were sitting. If normal transport was restored, the position would be much easier. I never heard men who were called upon to sit on juries objecting. They are called upon once in every four or five years. There are thousands of people, men and women, who would make good jurors in every county and they could be included in wider panels. The Minister has power to do that.

Men and women living in country districts are at a certain disadvantage compared to people who live in cities. The city dwellers have their homes almost within a stone's throw of the court and they have telephones to their places of business. Farmers may not like the job, but they do not raise any objection. I know numbers of them who act as jurors and who travel perhaps 30 or 40 miles and have to stay away from home two or three nights while acting as jurors, but they do not object; they look upon it as an insurance. If the jury system were abolished I believe you would have an outcry in the country and people would say that it was taking away their liberty.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I notice in connection with this Bill that certain dates have been altered, the dates on which the secretary of a county council or a town clerk shall prepare the jurors' lists. I should like to know from the Minister is that a reduction of the period in which the official has to prepare those lists?

Mr. Boland

The jurors' lists are made up at the same time as the voters' lists. There has been a change made there. The Minister for Local Government brought in a Bill changing the qualifying period for the ordinary voters from November to September. This Bill is brought in to alter the qualifying period for jurors in the same way as for ordinary electors. The people liable to serve as jurors are on the same register as the ordinary voters.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I understand in connection with the voters' lists that the time has been shortened and some of the clerks will find it very difficult to prepare the lists in that period.

Mr. Boland

That is not so. The register will be out in April instead of June. The qualifying period has been changed from November to September. The actual period for making up the lists is the same.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I received this Bill this morning. We were to have got it last night.

Mr. Boland

I am sorry about that.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It reached me only this morning and that leaves no time whatever to get in touch with interested parties on certain technical matters contained in it. With regard to the jurors' list and the classification of people from whom juries are selected, I should like to support what another Deputy has said about a widening of the panel. Cases are brought to Dublin from all over the country for trial here and that throws a tremendous strain on the Dublin jury panel. Anybody who has served on a jury in this city will see time and again the same names going forward and anybody in business in the city will notice the same persons from the same businesses being called for jury service, while there seem to be many other people who have never served on a jury in their lives. I do not know exactly on what basis the jurors' lists are compiled, but certainly here in the city there is a very good case for a widening of the list and for bringing in people who never have to discharge this very important civic function. I urge the Minister to look into it, with a view to seeing if, more especially for the City of Dublin, he can widen the list, because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the ordinary public, who feel that they are called far too often to serve on juries.

Mr. Corry

I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy Allen. I should like to support Deputy Cogan's demand that jurors should be paid. The professional classes are out of it—they are not called on to do the job at all— and a great number of people in the cities and towns are also out of it because of the valuation qualification. What happens at present is that the wise man goes deaf, because the man who is deaf cannot serve on a jury. Men are dragged into the cities and towns from their work for a certain number of days. They are called in on public work but the people who could best afford the time, the professional classes, are exempt. The solicitor goes in on the same day as the farmer. He sits on one seat and the poor farmer sits in the jury-box. The solicitor draws his £3 or £4 for the day while the farmer draws nothing. In all fairness, provision should be made for the payment of jurors. Further, the class distinction should go and the valuation distinction should also go. Let everybody be liable. Why exempt a certain class or profession and why narrow it down, through exemption of the professions, the valuation clauses and other means, until the point is reached when nobody can be called to serve on a jury but farmers? As we are amending the Bill, two definite changes should be made: a change in regard to the valuation proviso and also in regard to the exemption of the professional classes.

Captain Giles

I support Deputy Corry and Deputy Cogan with regard to the payment of jurors. There is great dissatisfaction amongst those called to serve on juries because they are brought long distances. They are brought distances of 15 to 25 miles and, in many cases, they have to cycle, and in other cases to walk, six or seven miles. When they get to the town, they find very little hotel accommodation and they have to stay in third-rate houses. If they are kept for three or four days, it represents a big loss because in most cases they are small farmers who do the work on their farms themselves. I do not see why they should not be paid. Everybody else is getting payment of some kind and there is no reason why the farmer should be left out. There should be no such thing as class distinction. In the old days, the aristocrats who ruled the country were well able to serve on juries without pay, but the ordinary farmer cannot afford to be away from his work for five or six days and it is only right that he should be compensated.

There should also be more concern for the accommodation of jurors brought into small towns. Twenty or 30 jurors are brought into the town of Trim and half of them cannot get accommodation. They have to go out to the country districts and beg farmers to take them in for the night. Some scheme should be devised whereby hotel accommodation would be arranged three or four days in advance for such people. Far more should be done for them because they are performing a very important function and they are a part of the community who should get more consideration.

Mr. McMenamin

I should like to know why the Minister considered it necessary to insert Section 8. One would think that the jurors' lists would be left to the Central Office, and that, when the Registrar of Lunacy wanted a jury, he would go to that office and get the officer in charge to summon a jury for him. It strikes me as a duplication of the functions of the Central Office.

Mr. Boland

With regard to the last point, I understand that it was considered that the Registrar of Wards of Court was the best person to summon a jury in lunacy matters. The President of the High Court thought so, too, and on his advice we adopted it. That was the advice we got from those best qualified in the matter. As to the payment of jurors, I have never heard any demand for it. There may be a feeling amongst people that they ought to be paid, but there has undoubtedly been a demand for the payment of expenses and subsistence allowance. I have taken that matter up with the Minister for Finance and he has agreed to consider favourably claims for the recoupment of expenses where jurors are compelled to stay overnight in a hotel, so that we have made an advance in that respect. So far as payment for actual service is concerned, I have never thought of amending the law in that regard.

Captain Giles

It is more the matter of expenses that we have in mind.

Mr. Boland

It may apply only to the emergency period when travel conditions are so difficult that people have to stay overnight, but the Minister is prepared to consider favourably claims in respect of transport and hotel accommodation arising out of jury service.

With regard to widening the panel, the reason that small farmers and work people were exempted is that it was considered it would be too great a hardship on such people who have to depend for their livelihood on their daily toil to be liable for jury service. They were exempted more from the point of view of removing a hardship than anything else. Quite a large number of people are set out in the Act here, and I do not know why they are excluded, but I know that some of them, certainly, should be exempt from jury duty, such as medical doctors, who might be engaged on very important cases, veterinary surgeons, who might also be engaged on important cases, and other people, such as school teachers, who could not leave their classes. Such people should be exempted and, accordingly, it will be seen that there are reasons for these exemptions and that they were well thought-out when the Juries Act was being passed in 1927. I think that Deputy M.E. Dockrell is wrong in saying that the same people are doing jury duty all the time or that they are serving on juries very often. I am informed that the actual recurrence of jury service would be once in three years at a maximum, and I would imagine that that is not very onerous. Then, of course, some court cases—murder cases, and so on—may last a very long time, and in such cases the judge generally gives an exemption to the jury for a number of years. I myself have seen where a judge has, after a prolonged case, exempted the jury from service for as much as ten years. So that, there is not such a great hardship there, and particularly where, as I am told, the maximum is about once in three years.

With regard to the question of the seven jurymen, I think that Deputy Dillon is wrong in saying that in criminal cases a defendant can demand a jury of 12. I understand that he can only do that in the Central Criminal Court, but in the Circuit Court the jury is only seven, and that was due to transport difficulties arising out of the emergency, and we shall have to keep to that until these transport difficulties cease to exist. When that occurs, the necessity for having only seven jurors will disappear and we can go back to the other system, but in the interests of the jurors themselves, I think it is better because, very often, jurors may have to spend a night or two in the town where the court is being held.

I think, Sir, that I have dealt with the various points that were raised. As I have said, the necessity for this Bill arose from the Electoral Bill recently passed. Then also there was the case of hardship of certain people who were not able to attend their religious duties on a Sunday because members of the jury, of another persuasion, were not willing to go with them, and under the law a jury cannot be separated. Accordingly, provision is made to enable people to attend their religious duties, and there is also relief in the case of certain people whose relatives might be sick or dying. With regard to the question of payment, I could not bring it into this Bill, but the matter of expenses is being examined.

Mr. Corry

Would the Minister bring the matter of expenses into this Bill?

Mr. Boland

As I have said, I have already got the consent of the Minister for Finance to give sympathetic consideration to any application for such matters as taxis or hotel accommodation.

Mr. Corish

Which Minister was it— the new one or the old one?

Mr. Boland

It is not necessary to have it in the Bill.

Mr. Corish

I know, but which Minister made the promise — the new one or the old one?

Mr. Boland

I do not think it matters.

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister say why small farmers under £10 valuation are exempted and why wage-earners with small salaries in the city have to serve on juries?

Mr. Boland

I thought that where a wage-earner had to attend the judge generally exempts him. I think that the judge is as reasonable as possible in the matter of jury lists, and I understood that it was usual to exempt tradesmen or people working for a weekly wage.

Mr. Davin

Is the Minister not aware that persons with small wages or salaries, including weekly wage-earners and small tradesmen, have to serve on juries?

Mr. Boland

They must be occupying premises of a certain valuation. If they occupy premises over £20 valuation they would be liable to serve.

Mr. Davin

But some of these people are buying out their houses on an annuity system.

Mr. Boland

Well, it is very difficult to widen this thing out. The matter of people being summoned is also to be examined, with a view to seeing whether it is possible to reduce the number attending.

Mr. Davin

Will the Minister look into that matter?

Mr. Boland

Certainly, I shall look into it.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it proposed to take the Committee Stage next week?

Mr. Boland

I am sorry, Sir, that the Bill was not circulated until this morning, but I should like to have the Committee Stage as soon as possible.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

This, Sir, is a Bill that affects a very large number of citizens of this country — well, Dublin, not to speak of the country— and we were sent the Bill only this morning. Now, some jurors are people who look after their interests and they may think that they are not quite fairly treated in certain instances and would like to look into this Bill. If the Committee Stage of the Bill is to be brought in on Tuesday next, that means that such people have only two days to look into it. I suggest that in connection with a Bill that affects a very wide body of people they should be given some time to consider it. I should like to suggest that these people should be given an opportunity to consider the matter because it must be remembered that it makes for the ease of mind of people if, afterwards, you can say to them: "Well, you were given the opportunity, and you did not make any objection."

Mr. Boland

My only anxiety was to get the Bill through before the Dáil adjourned. It is only an amending Bill, and so far as the jurors are affected, I would say that this Bill makes for their ease, because it gives power to the judge to release them from duty in the case of the illness of relatives and also in the case of attendance at religious duties. We are actually giving some relief to jurors in this Bill. In addition, we had to bring it in as a result of the passing of the Electoral Bill. I do not wish to rush the Bill at all, and if I thought that it was going to be to the detriment of the jurors, I would not press it.

General Mulcahy

Perhaps the Minister would put the Committee Stage down for next Wednesday, the 27th?

Mr. Boland

I have no objection. I do not want to rush the Bill through if there is any objection.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments to be in by 12 noon on Monday next.

Mr. Boland

I should like to have the Committee Stage by Tuesday, Sir, but whatever the House says.

General Mulcahy

Suppose it could be put down provisionally for Wednesday, and take it that the amendments would be put in by Tuesday.

Mr. Boland

Very well.

Agreed.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 21 Jun 1945