(Cavan) and Mr. M.J. O'Higgins asked the Minister for Justice whether any direction or advice, written or verbal, has been given or conveyed by him or his Department to any branch of the Judiciary or the District Court Bench either collectively or individually as to how the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, or the Rules made thereunder should be operated or interpreted; and if any such direction or advice was given or conveyed in writing if he will lay a copy of such writing before the Dáil.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act.
64.
Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick
No direction, written or verbal, was given or conveyed by me or my Department to any branch of the judiciary as to how the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, or the Regulations made under the Act should be operated or interpreted.
On the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, the then Minister for Justice explained to this House the circumstances in which it was contemplated that legal aid might be granted and he made it clear that the legal aid scheme was of an experimental nature and that its continuance would depend on whether it could be operated within a reasonable cost to the State.
Earlier this month, in the course of my opening speech on the debate on my Department's Estimates, I stressed, at length, that the legal aid scheme must be exercised with due regard to the overall cost and that £20,000 had been allocated as the maximum expenditure in the present financial year.
The views publicly expressed by my predecessor in 1962 and by me were communicated in writing to the Justices of the District Court so that the Justices might adopt a uniform, practical approach to applications. The views were also communicated to the President of the Circuit Court for communication to the Circuit Judges.
It would be contrary to established practice to publish communications of this nature and I do not propose to do so.
(Cavan): Am I correct in thinking that the Minister's reply seems to be contradictory, and that he said in the first part of it that no communication was conveyed to the judiciary, and in the latter part that a communication was made to the President of the District Court or the President of the Circuit Court?
I said that no direction, either written or verbal, was given by me to the judiciary or to any member of the judiciary. In this case I certainly furnished—and I always will furnish—to the members of the judiciary my views as to how a scheme enacted by this House should operate.
Does the Minister distinguish between a suggestion and a direction?
I have always regarded it my prerogative as Minister for Justice that my views should be made plain.
Will the Minister agree that he has given advice?
I made known my views.
The question asked is whether the Minister had given any direction or advice. Arising out of the Minister's reply, I should like to put it to him that on his statement today it is quite clear that he has given advice to the District Court Bench as to how the scheme is to be interpreted. I want to suggest to the Minister that it is the function of this House to pass legislation, but that it is the function of the Bench to administer and interpret the legislation we pass and that it is quite improper that the Minister or anyone in his Department should attempt to give advice, or a direction, to the Bench as to how they will administer the laws which we pass.
I want to make it quite plain that I have not presumed, and would not presume, to give any direction to the Bench. I have made known to the Justices of the District Court and the Judges of the Circuit Court what my views are as to how this scheme is to be operated. Those views are there to be considered and there is no directive implied. I am certain they will exercise their practical good sense in having a uniform and sensible interpretation of the scheme.
What is the purpose of making the Minister's views known if they are not to be acted on?
(Cavan): Would the Minister agree it is fundamentally unsound that he should try to influence the members of the judiciary in any way as to how they will interpret an Act of Parliament, otherwise than by appearing in open court, through the Attorney General or the Attorney General's representative?
I certainly do not think it unsound. I have a responsibility to the elected representatives of the people of Ireland to make known my views to any branch of the judiciary on the interpretation of any scheme they may administer. Whether they follow them or not is their business.
(Cavan): Does the Minister not agree——
This is becoming an argument.
(Cavan):—that the place to do it is in the open court through the Attorney General?
I will continue to——
I should like to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I am very glad. I want the fullest possible discussion on this matter.