asked the Minister for Finance whether it will be necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate (a) in 1961-62 or (b) in 1962-63 to defray the costs and expenses incurred by the State and the costs and expenses ordered to be paid by the State in connection with the criminal proceedings lately held against Paul Singer; when it is intended to introduce the Supplementary Estimate (if necessary); and what is likely to be the amount of such Supplementary Estimate.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Paul Singer Court Proceedings: Costs and Expenses.
12.
A Supplementary Estimate for £32,750 for the Vote for Law Charges for the present financial year is being introduced. The extra provision sought is not exclusively attributable to the Singer case. It is not expected that a Supplementary Estimate for this Vote will arise in the financial year 1962-63.
Is it not clear that the public are entitled to feel a grave sense of dissatisfaction and anxiety not only lest the cause of justice has not been served but also for the immense expenditure of public money as a result of bungling by the law officers of the State? Is there no reply?
That is a matter of opinion.
It is a matter of opinion——
I shall certainly not give any sort of undertaking that every prosecution undertaken by the State will be successful.
That would be excessive. Would the Taoiseach give this undertaking, that every prosecution conducted by the State will be conducted competently——
I can give that assurance.
——and that extravagant bungling will not result in the courts being frustrated from passing judgment on the merits of an indictment?
I think I am in a position to say this: Counsel employed by the State to conduct this case were highly competent and responsible members of the Irish Bar, and it is unfair to accuse them of inefficiency or bungling, in circumstances where they cannot defend themselves.
May I inquire of the Taoiseach if the ultimate responsibility for drafting the documents in this case rested clearly with the Attorney General who is the Government's principal law officer?
Certainly.
I respectfully submit that it should not be suggested that any reflection is made upon counsel employed by the Attorney General. The question here is whether the law officer of the Government efficiently discharged his duty which was to accept the ultimate and absolute responsibility for the form of the indictment laid before the court.
The Attorney General will accept any responsibility which is properly his, but everyone knows it is normal practice for the Attorney General to leave the conduct of a case in the courts to the counsel he appoints to conduct it.
Does everyone not know that in this case the Attorney General himself drafted the indictment?
A Deputy
That is common knowledge.