asked the Minister for Justice if his attention had been called to the criticism made by a number of district justices alleging interference with court decisions by the Minister for Justice and if he will take steps to ensure that the grounds for such criticism will be removed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Court Decisions—District Justices' Criticisms.
My attention has been called to the criticisms referred to.
The Government consider that the public interest requires that the power, which is vested in the Executive, to commute or remit punishment imposed by the courts is one that should be used most sparingly and only for cogent reasons and in exceptional circumstances. The administration of justice is a matter for the courts, and it should be left to the courts to measure punishment.
As matters stand, it appears to be the practice that, when a person who has been convicted of an offence, or somebody on his behalf, presents a petition for clemency, the police are, as a matter of course unless the case is plainly a frivolous one, asked for a report. The petition and report are then transmitted to the judge or justice who tried the case, with a request for his observations. As the Government are satisfied that the present procedure entails a good deal of unnecessary work and waste of time, explicit instructions have been given that, in future, petitions which do not disclose any merits on their face are to be disallowed without reference to the trial judge or justice concerned and without obtaining a police report. Directions have also been given to disallow petitions from or on behalf of persons who have neglected or omitted to pursue their ordinary right of appeal, unless it is established that the person concerned is, through lack of means or for any other reason, incapable of exercising his right or that an appeal was not taken for some other valid or reasonable cause.
Petitions received are frequently based on the suggestion that a fine imposed is beyond the petitioner's means to pay. In that connection, it is important to direct attention to the fact that the District Court (which handles most of the criminal business in the country) is specifically required by its rules to take into consideration the offender's means and to give him time to pay, where this is required, and is empowered, moreover, even after it has fixed the time for payment, to extend that time on subsequent application and to allow such further time as it may think fit.
On the question of the removal of disqualifications, particularly those that are incurred by persons who have been convicted of motoring offences as a statutory consequence of their conviction, the Government take the view that, whatever opinion may be held about the necessity for or the value of uniform, severe and automatic penalties as a method of preventing such offences, the law should be allowed to take its course save in exceptional circumstances. The Government, however, intend to have the matter examined with a view to a possible amendment of the law which would enable a person subjected to such a disqualification to apply to a court for reconsideration of the penalty and would empower the court to remove or modify the disqualification if, in the opinion of the court, the circumstances warrant that course.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach does he think it proper for a district justice during two general elections, one in 1951 and the other, the last election, to question the right of a Minister to defer execution of a warrant pending his consideration of a petition, especially in view of the fact that this particular district justice had got the opinion from two Attorneys-General that the Minister could not properly exercise his functions if he had not the right to defer the execution of such a warrant? I am glad to hear that the Taoiseach does intend to amend Section 23 of the 1951 Act. I intended to ask him that as a supplementary but he has already answered it. I am glad that he intends to do what I suggested when the Act was going through, to have some person other than a Minister to deal with the question.
Am I correct in taking it from the Taoiseach's reply that he is not contemplating the amendment suggested by Deputy Boland but that he is contemplating introducing legislation to enable a court to review or to modify disqualifications?
I want to have the matter examined. I am aware of the suggestion that was made by Deputy Boland when Minister for Justice. I will have the matter examined also with a view to seeing what would be the most appropriate method of dealing with it. The indication which I have given in my reply indicates my preference, that it should be a court that would look into the question of removing a disqualification.
Will the Taoiseach answer my question, whether he thinks it proper for a district justice to butt in during a general election on two occasions, when Deputy MacEoin was Minister and when I was Minister? I think it is most improper.
Does the Taoiseach intend to take any action with regard to the pronouncements generally made by district justices on matters of public controversy the solution of which would appear to be a matter for the Minister concerned and the Government?