asked the Taoiseach whether he has seen a report of 31st May, 1963 of an application for adjournment and transfer to the Central Criminal Court of a dangerous driving charge; whether he considers such application for transfer was appropriate; and if he will now in advance of the trial pay the costs of the accused, as was suggested by the Circuit Court judge.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Transfer of Dangerous Driving Charge to Central Criminal Court.
2.
I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings referred to. The application for the transfer of the trial to the Central Criminal Court was, in my view, appropriate.
I understand that before the accused man left Sweden, his solicitor had spoken to him on the telephone and had informed him that, because of the absence of an essential prosecution witness, it was intended to apply to have the trial adjourned. Written confirmation that an adjournment would be sought and that the prosecution would not require the attendance of the accused was sent to his solicitor. I understand that before this letter was sent by the State Solicitor its contents were discussed with and approved by counsel for the accused. If the accused had acted reasonably, he would not have incurred the expense of travelling from Sweden and the State is, therefore, not called upon to pay this unnecessary expense.
Is it not true that when all the facts relating to this matter were brought to the attention of the circuit court judge, he expressed the view that, if he reluctantly consented to an adjournment, he would expect the State to pay the costs and it was thereupon that the Attorney General exercised his prerogative to apply for a transfer to the Central Criminal Court, which it is obligatory on the circuit court judge to grant? Does the Taoiseach think that is a suitable use of the Attorney General's prerogative or is it an oppressive use of it in order to avoid paying costs which, in the judge's opinion, should be paid?
I do not know what facts were within the knowledge of the circuit court judge. The facts are as I stated in reply to the question.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that the power vested in the Attorney General to seek a transfer to the Central Criminal Court, and to have it of right, is designed for the better securing of justice to avoid circumstances where the due administration of justice might be complicated? Does he think it is a proper use of that arbitrary power to evade the State's liability for costs?
I do not think I should add anything to what I have said. This case is still sub judice.
It is not sub judice. It has been transferred to the Central Criminal Court and whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, surely it is a wrong use of the Attorney General's power to make this application for the transfer?
That is not the whole story.
It is a very shocking abuse of a power vested in the Attorney General by this House.