With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 together.
I am aware of the circumstances of the case adverted to by the Deputies. The facts are as follows:—
The Letter of Request in this matter was issued by the Italian Court on the 21st August, 1965, and was received in my Department on the 23rd September, 1965, under cover of a Note dated the previous day from the Italian Embassy.
As there were no recent precedents for such a Request in criminal cases, it had to be examined in my Department with a view to determining whether it could be acceded to and, if so, the law and procedure to be followed. Subsequently, my Department had to get the agreement of the Italian Embassy to their being responsible for the expenses involved in securing the evidence and, as required by the Rules of Court, to obtain written sanction from the Department of Finance for the undertaking of this assignment by the Irish legal and judicial authorities. This having been done the relevant documents and translations were transmitted to the Master of the High Court on the 28th October, 1965.
On the 2nd November the procedure for obtaining evidence for the assistance of foreign courts prescribed by the Rules of Court was put in motion by the Master of the High Court writing to the Chief State Solicitor.
On the 3rd November the Chief State Solicitor wrote to the Attorney General requesting him to nominate counsel.
On the 5th November the Attorney General replied with nomination of counsel.
On the 10th November the Chief State Solicitor wrote to the Gardaí asking them to verify whether the witnesses were available.
On the 15th November the Gardaí confirmed that the witnesses were at their addresses.
On the 15th November the Chief State Solicitor instructed counsel.
On the 23rd November the Chief State Solicitor's Office wrote to the office of the President of the District Court requesting the President to name a District Justice to be appointed by the High Court to take the evidence and to fix the time and venue of the hearing.
On the 23rd December the Office of the President of the District Court telephoned the Office of the Chief State Solicitor acknowledging the request and suggesting various dates for the taking of evidence.
On the 24th December the Chief State Solicitor telephoned the President of the District Court selecting 1st February for the hearing of the evidence of the witnesses.
On the 4th January the Chief State Solicitor swore an affidavit to support the application to the High Court.
On the 11th January an application was made to the High Court for the appointment of the President of the District Court as examiner and for the attendance of the witnesses before him.
On the 12th January the High Court made an Order appointing the President of the District Court to hear the evidence on 17th January.
On the 15th January the High Court heard counsel for the two witnesses.
On the 17th January evidence in the case was taken before the President of the District Court.
On the 19th January my Department received the documents from the Master of the High Court and on the same date forwarded them to the Italian Embassy.
My Department and the Attorney General's Office are considering suggestions for simplifying and shortening the various procedures required under present law and practice in cases of this kind. It is hoped to have these suggestions put before the Rules Making Committee at an early date. I see no necessity for adopting the course suggested by Deputy Dunne.
