I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. Of the three provisions which it contains, two relate to the Circuit Court and one to the District Court.
In relation to the Circuit Court, the Bill provides that the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court shall be nine. As the President of the Circuit Court is, so to speak, a working Circuit Judge, in the sense that he carries out the full duties of a Circuit Court Judge in addition to his functions as President, the practical effect of the Bill will be to provide a maximum of ten Circuit Court Judges. In doing this, the Bill does no more than restore the strength of the Circuit Court bench to what it was up to last August when, under the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, 1953, the maximum number of judges fell to be reduced by one on the occurrence of a vacancy.
It may be recalled that the 1953 Act authorised the Government to reduce the number of circuits of the Circuit Court from nine to eight, with a provision that the judge who would become unassigned to a circuit on the reduction of the number of circuits would remain unassigned pending the occurrence of a vacancy. There was also a provision that on the occurrence of such vacancy the number of Circuit Court Judges would be reduced by one.
Owing to a combination of reasons, the Order to which I have referred did not come into effect until 1960. It reduced the number of circuits by amalgamating the North-Eastern Circuit and the North-Western Circuit into a new circuit called the Northern Circuit. A vacancy among the Circuit Court Judges did not arise until last August so that up to then there was a spare judge, unassigned to any circuit, who was available to relieve pressure as required.
When the 1960 Order, which reduced the number of circuits outside Dublin from eight to seven, was being prepared in the latter half of 1959, there was good reason to expect that, on the occurrence of a vacancy, a total of nine judges, inclusive of the President of the Circuit Court, would suffice. That expectation was based, in particular, on the belief that it would be possible for two judges to handle the volume of Circuit Court work arising in Dublin. The number of sitting days required in Dublin in the year 1956-57 was 332, in the year 1957-58 was 367 and in the year 1958-59 was 337,—a load which could be carried without undue difficulty by two judges.
Since 1958-59, however, the volume of work in Dublin has increased very substantially so that Dublin now requires practically the whole-time services of three judges. As I mentioned earlier, the unassigned judge was available for service in Dublin until a vacancy occurred last August on the retirement of a Circuit Judge. To avoid the accumulation of arrears to an excessive extent the Government appointed a temporary Circuit Judge at the commencement of term last October. As there is no reason to expect that there will be, in the near future, any overall reduction in the volume of business, and as there is a very real objection in principle to having temporary judges other than for short periods in exceptional circumstances, the Government decided that the proper course is to seek legislative approval to restore the number of permanent judges to that which obtained for many years up to last August.
It is the intention that, when the strength of the Circuit Court Bench has been brought up to that prevailing prior to August last, one of the judges will remain unassigned to a particular circuit. As I have indicated already, his services will, for the most part, be required in Dublin, but he will also be available to give assistance elsewhere as required.
In view of the situation in Dublin and the number of sitting days required there it will, I think, be accepted generally that virtually the full-time services of a third judge are required. It may be objected, however, that, in terms of sitting days, many of the circuits and judges outside Dublin are underloaded and that it should be possible to provide the extra judge for Dublin by reducing further the number of provincial circuits or, alternatively, by arranging that some judges assigned to other circuits would help out in Dublin. These matters have been given careful consideration; regard has been had to the volume of business in the various circuits, to the undesirability of disturbing frequently the constitution of circuits and to the impossibility, because of the large volume of work involved, of having the extra work arising in Dublin performed on what might be described as a casual basis. It has been decided as a result of this examination that the only practical solution is to restore the number of judges to that available up to last August. In matters of this sort we must strive to be as economical as possible but at the same time we must see to it that our courts function adequately and efficiently and that our people are enabled to have their affairs decided without undue delay or inconvenience.
The second provision in relation to the Circuit Court is one which enables the Government, when necessary, to alter the composition of the Circuit Court Circuits, other than the Dublin Circuit and the Cork Circuit. The primary purpose of this provision is to enable the 1960 reorganisation, which led to the creation of the present Northern Circuit, to be modified so as to reduce that circuit to manageable proportions. The Northern Circuit was formed in the 1960 reorganisation by the amalgamation of the entire North-Western Circuit, which consisted of County Donegal and County Sligo, with the entire North-Eastern Circuit, which consisted of Cavan, Leitrim and Monaghan. When the 1960 reorganisation was being considered by the Government, some fears were expressed that the new amalgamated Northern Circuit would prove too heavy for one judge. In the outcome, these fears have proved to be well founded; despite the provision of additional assistance by a second judge, the position in regard to arrears has been unsatisfactory, so that a further revision is unavoidable. Fortunately, the volume of work in adjacent circuits is such as to permit the transfer to these circuits of some of the extra load from the Northern Circuit, and on the enactment of the present Bill, the Government will take appropriate action on these lines.
The provision in the present Bill regarding the alteration of circuits is limited in scope, as it is confined to alterations in the composition of circuits by the addition to or removal from a circuit of a county or county borough. The reorganisations of the Circuit Court authorised by the Courts of Justice Act, 1936 and the Courts of Justice Act, 1953, were much broader in scope and extended to changes in the number of circuits, to the cessation of the assignments of judges and to the making by the Government of fresh assignments of judges to circuits. These latter provisions are not repeated in the provision now before the House, and in view of its limited scope it is considered reasonable that the Government should make changes, of the minor nature envisaged, from time to time without having to seek specific statutory authority. The section provides for prior consultation between the Government, on the one hand, and the President of the Circuit Court and any judge concerned on the other hand, in relation to any proposed alteration.
The fact that the Government will have power to alter circuits from time to time, without specific reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas, should not be taken as an indication of the Government's intention to make such alterations with any frequency. I accept that on general grounds it is desirable that there should be continuity in the composition of circuits so far as it is reasonably possible to maintain this continuity; alterations will be confined to those dictated by considerations of efficiency and of a fair distribution of work.
The final provision in the Bill relates to the District Court and provides that the times at which justices of the District Court may take their vacations shall be such times as may be approved of by the Minister for Justice. This provision does no more than confirm the position which has obtained for the past 40 years. Section 91 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 provided that the District Court Rules Committee might make rules for regulating, among other matters, the vacations of the justices, and Section 92 of the same Act provided that such rules required the approval of the Minister for Home Affairs, now the Minister for Justice. No. 173 of the District Court Rules, 1926, provided that:—
Each Justice of the District Court shall be entitled to six weeks holidays in the year, which shall be taken at such time or times as permit of arrangements being made for the proper discharge of public business.
A fresh version of the District Court Rules was produced in 1948, and these Rules, on the subject of Justices' vacation, confine themselves to providing that:—
Each Justice shall be entitled to six weeks holidays in the year.
From 1924 until last year the vacation periods of individual justices were subject to the prior approval of the Minister for Justice, which was given in general or in particular terms as circumstances made appropriate. The change in the wording of the District Court Rule in 1948 made no difference whatever to arrangements regarding vacation. In 1963, however, it was contended on behalf of District Justices that they had a right to take vacation at periods chosen by themselves, without the approval of, or even consultation with, the Minister for Justice. It is obvious that such a contention, if accepted, would make it impossible to arrange for the smooth running of the District Court service, and could readily lead to chaos. The provision in section 5 of the present Bill is designed to maintain the position which has operated in the public interest, and with due regard to the convenience of District Justices, for the past 40 years.
Having dealt with the provisions of the Bill as it stands at present, I should like to mention at this stage that I propose to introduce at the Committee Stage, by way of two amendments, two new provisions designed to improve the efficiency of the Circuit Court and the District Court.
The first of these provisions is designed to impose a restriction on the right of transfer of a criminal case from the Circuit Criminal Court to the Central Criminal Court. This is a matter which has already engaged the attention of the Dáil. Deputies will recall that a provision to restrict this right was included in the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, 1959, as introduced, and that in the course of the debate I permitted myself to be persuaded not to proceed with the provision. In the intervening period, however, it is becoming progressively clearer that some such restriction is necessary in order to prevent dislocation of court business and avoidable hardship and inconvenience to witnesses and others. The amendment which I shall introduce provides that if the Attorney General or the accused wishes to apply for a transfer of a criminal case from the Circuit Court to the Central Criminal Court, and give seven days notice of the application, the application must be granted. If such notice is not given, the court will have discretion whether or not to grant the application. I propose that the right to transfer shall be confined, as at present, to offences carrying a maximum penalty exceeding one year's imprisonment or five years' penal servitude.
The second amendment which I intend to put down provides for the service of Circuit Court and District Court documents by registered post in areas where the post of summons server is vacant or becomes vacant. With the progressive improvement in the employment situation throughout the country it has become clear that we cannot hope to keep the number of summons servers, of whom there are about 400, up to strength throughout the country, as suitable persons will not be attracted in sufficient numbers unless the Exchequer is called upon to accept a much heavier charge in the way of retainer fees. These fees have recently been increased substantially at a cost of about £6,000 a year, bringing the total annual charge to £20,000 approximately. I am satisfied that in this matter the State has gone as far as it can reasonably be expected to go in subsidising the cost of what is very largely the initiation of civil proceedings. The service of Circuit Court documents by registered post operated satisfactorily for a number of years during the Emergency, and precedents for the service of court documents by registered post have recently been set in the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958, the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1960, and the Charities Act, 1961. Registered post service is now an accepted idea on the Continent and is, indeed, being provided for in the Uniform Law on Arbitration now being drafted at Strasbourg, which it is hoped to have adopted in this country. We already have provision for such service in our Arbitration Act of 1954. The change to registered post, which will be confined to areas where there is no summons server, will in time make a significant contribution to reducing the cost of litigation.
The contents of the Bill as it stands at present, together with the two additional provisions which I have mentioned, will help to improve the efficiency of our legal system and I am happy to recommend that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
