asked the Minister for Justice whether he is aware of the great delay that occurs in the District Court through the requirement that depositions in criminal cases be taken in longhand and then read over to the witness and that this procedure is responsible for the clogging-up of the machinery of the Dublin District Court, that it causes heavy loss of time to accused persons and witnesses, places a severe mental strain on accused persons, puts them to considerable costs and expenses that could be avoided and increases the cost to the public of the District Court; and, if so, whether he will take the matter up with the appropriate committees and authorities with a view to the early adoption of a procedure by which the depositions could be recorded in shorthand or by approved mechanical means thus obviating the many objections and delays arising from the archaic and unsatisfactory system at present in use.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Taking of Depositions.
The present procedure on the preliminary investigation of indictable charges involves the reading over of the evidence, as recorded in the deposition, in the presence of the accused and of the deponent who is then required to sign the deposition. This procedure takes time but I am satisfied that it is time well spent and that there is no case for any radical alteration in the existing procedure.
There is no requirement which precludes the use of the typewriter for taking depositions and there can be no objection to the use of this method (particularly if a silent typewriter is employed) by a person who is sufficiently skilled both as a typist and as a taker of depositions. But, apart from the fact that there are few such persons available, it is doubtful whether the use of the typewriter results in any worth-while saving of time in court and there is good authority for the view that the most satisfactory way of ensuring that depositions are properly taken is to record them in longhand.
For obvious reasons the use of shorthand is not permissible except under conditions which would involve as much delay for all concerned as the present procedure and more inconvenience. Various other mechanical devices that have been suggested and considered from time to time have had to be ruled out as impracticable.
Is the Minister aware that a very large volume of judicial and legal opinion favours a change in the procedure, and is the Minister further aware that the preliminary investigation of cases in the Dublin District Courts continues now for as long as four to five months? Is the Minister further aware that in Britain last week the preliminary investigation in a murder trial, in which evidence was taken from 33 witnesses, finished within a day and a half? In view of those facts would the Minister agree to reconsider the matter in consultation with both Circuit Court judges and district justices?
I will have the matter examined further. My information is that, while the system has its disadvantages, it has very many advantages for the accused. Every accused person is entitled to a reasonable chance of defending himself and in the long run the present system is considered one of the best methods of ensuring that. I agree that the delay is very great.
Would the Minister agree that, apart from the fact that the charge may be hanging over the head of the accused person for a long period, it is very expensive to have to travel to court week after week or fortnight after fortnight over a period of three or four months? It involves the State in very heavy expense. Surely, if a more simplified method could be adopted, it would be to the advantage of everybody.
I have told the Deputy that I am examining the matter further.