asked the Minister for Justice the number of meetings convened under section 36 (3) (a) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, since the passing of that Act; and the dates of and the average attendance at such meetings.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - District Justices Meetings.
60.
Twelve meetings of district justices have been convened under the statutory provision mentioned since 29th September, 1961, the date on which the Act came into operation.
The dates on which the meetings were held are set out in a tabular statement which, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report.
The average attendance at such meetings was 88 per cent.
The following is the statement:
|
Year |
Date of meeting |
|
1961 |
19th December |
|
1963 |
6th April |
|
1964 |
11th January28th November |
|
1965 |
3rd April |
|
1966 |
30th April |
|
1967 |
23rd September |
|
1968 |
12th October |
|
1970 |
26th September |
|
1971 |
17th July |
|
1972 |
22nd July30th October |
Would I be right in thinking that during the past few years these meetings have been infrequent?
The Deputy would be right in that in 1972 there were two meetings while there was one meeting in 1971. The Act which provides for the calling of these meetings provides also that the frequency of such meetings be not more than twice in one year but that frequency, limited as it is, has not been met except for last year.
Is the Minister satisfied that the primary purpose of these meetings as set out in the subsection, namely, an effort to ensure that there would be uniformity of penalties throughout the country, does not seem to have been achieved? Is he aware that there is public disquiet as a result of a considerable lack of uniformity in relation to penalties in different parts of the country for the same or for similar type offences?
No doubt the Deputy is aware that the sentence or punishment applicable in any particular case depends on the circumstances of that case. It depends on the seriousness of the matter and on whether it is a mitigation. It can depend also on the standard of advocacy adduced by the defendant in his defence. Once these variations are built into the system it is impossible to have utter uniformity. I share the Deputy's concern in cases where there would appear to be a large divergence in respect of what we might call routine offences. I would like to see a uniform standard prevail as much as possible but I do not know whether this can be achieved to any absolute degree.
Would the Minister not agree that there appears to be one area of the country in which prison sentences are imposed frequently for the offence of drunken driving for which offence a prison sentence is a very irregular penalty in almost all other areas of the country?
I am not aware that there is one area in which this happens but if it were to happen in the sense indicated by the Deputy, I would deprecate it.
I am glad to hear the Minister say that.
I hesitate to mention that I was the person responsible for introducing this particular Act. Is the Minister aware that the Act was intended to serve a much wider purpose than mere uniformity of penalities? Would the Minister consider using his good offices in an effort to have these meetings re-established as a matter of urgency?
The Act provides that the frequency be limited to two meetings per year. As I have said, there were two such meetings in 1972 and I am hopeful that the two statutory meetings will be held also in 1973.
Only 12 meetings were held in a period of 12 years.
Who was Minister then?
Of what is the Deputy complaining?