Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 1986

Vol. 368 No. 8

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Guilty Plea Court Cases.

10.

asked the Minister for Justice if he will consider amending legislation so that in serious cases where a person, having been returned for trial, pleads not guilty, the judge shall not be entitled to dismiss the case without it going before the jury.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 10 together.

These questions have been put down in the immediate aftermath of a particular court case and are, in effect, an invitation to me to comment by implication on the decision in that case. Under the Constitution the judiciary are independent in the exercise of their functions and there is a long-standing tradition that individual court decisions are not criticised in this House except, where necessary, in the context of legislation before the House or a resolution for the removal of a judge from office. It is in the long-term public interest that I should adhere strictly to that tradition, the reasons for which were explained at some length in a statement which was made in this House by my predecessor on 10 March 1983, Official Report, columns 2437-2440.

The Minister is avoiding the question. Would he indicate whether he considers there is a need for legislation to be amended to avoid the kind of public unease about court decisions which has developed not just following the recent case but in other cases? Are the Government even considering this in order to allay public unease?

I still take the view that the Deputy is inviting me by implication to comment on a particular decision which I do not intend to do. May I remind the House that on 10 March 1983 there was a discussion here of a particular matter related to sentencing policy. While Deputies have referred to public unease and some comments have been made about that, I am bound to take the view that a certain amount of unease is being cultivated by references which do not take account of the fact that in the case in question not all the legal procedures have been gone through.

The Minister is wrong in assuming that this question relates to a particular case. In view of some very inconsistent and weird decisions made in recent months, will the Minister consider setting up a body to explain to the public the rationable behind decisions made in court? This body, perhaps of lawyers, might monitor the performance of judges in the execution of their duties. This is very relevant. Public unease is not confined to one case. There was considerable public disquiet expressed when a man in my constituency got a month in jail for urinating in the street, but a man can be killed and nobody is brought to justice. Surely there is a reason for disquiet when this happens.

I do not accept the conclusion Deputy Allen draws from that. In most cases where the law provides for penalties, it provides typically for a maximum penalty. It provides on occasion for both a minimum and a maximum penalty, and in the majority of cases where penalties are provided for, a margin of discretion is left to the judiciary on the basis of statutes passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Does the Minister agree that because some court decisions are not understood or are confusing they are serving to undermine the confidence of the public in the judicial system? In certain cases, does the Minister accept that when there is a definite statement from an expert medical witness that a person died as a result of head injuries rather than, say——

The Deputy is identifying a case and I ask him please not to continue along those lines.

If you will bear with me you will see I am asking a very general question.

If the Deputy thinks about it he will realise he is not and the whole world knows what he is talking about.

Would the Minister agree that where an expert medical witness says a person died as a result of a certain injury rather than, say, heart failure, there should not be reasonable doubt that the person died from heart failure?

I am ruling that question out and I am ordering the Deputy not to continue along those lines.

If so, would he amend the legislation to ensure that such cases go to the jury?

Will Deputy Skelly please resume his seat?

A recent case, the DPP v Campbell——

If the Deputy continues along those lines I will invoke Standing Orders immediately.

You may do so, but at least we should have some say in this House. This is a very general question.

The Chair is the judge.

The Chair unfortunately is for this Dáil, but I will not vote for him in the next Dáil. I can assure him of that.

Question No. 10 does not refer to a specific case. If I had wanted information about a particular case I would have put down a specific question. Would the Minister not accept that there is a widespread feeling that the law is not being applied equally across the board? In view of my question, would the Government even consider amending legislation to ensure that cases are seen to be justly dealt with?

Under common law — and I am being very careful because I do not want to run foul of the Chair's ruling — a judge has the power to withdraw a criminal case from a jury and direct the jury to acquit if in his opinion no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution on which the jury could properly convict the accused——

I would ask the Minister not to proceed along those lines because he is speaking of a case which was recently before the courts.

I am not speaking of a specific case.

If the Minister continues along these lines I cannot stop other Deputies discussing other lines.

Would the Minister accept that there has been a problem for many members of the public about seeing justice being done in a number of cases in the past few years, but that is not to say that justice has not been done? The rationale behind the decisions and the procedures which have been used are not evident in many cases and, in the eyes of the public, that is doing some disservice to the principles we all hold dear. Does the Minister see himself as having a function of perhaps making some review or reassessment of the procedures that exist in that respect? In 1964 the present Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Haughey, Minister of Justice at the time, accepted that the Superior Courts Rules Committee would take on from then some powers previously exercised by the Minister, and the procedures of the courts are of legitimate interest to the Minister. We are talking about legitimate questions not necessarily being answered clearly in the public's mind.

I would accept as an individual and as a Member of this House a certain duty on the lines of what Deputy Keating has outlined. That would be a duty in some cases to inform myself as to what happened in the court and as to what the law provides in cases like that, and in the event that I found that the matter was being presented in a way that did not take account of what was presented to the court or what the law provided, I would find it my duty not to go along with misleading impressions that were being given but to do my best to illuminate rather than to obscure the issues.

I accept what the Minister says in relation to his assessments of evidence and procedures, but in terms of communicating the decision and the rationale behind the decision in a court case or a number of court cases, does he feel that the public interest is best served by the maximum degree of access to the knowledge and information relevant to the case? That need not necessarily reflect one way or the other on the case. That is not being done at present. In one or two recent cases it is obvious that there is a great degree of confusion in the public mind about it, to put it charitably.

There may well be, but save in a fairly limited number of cases and areas the decisions of our courts are matters of public record. They are accessible to the public and in particular to all of the media.

But the reasons——

I am bound to say that if Deputies feel there is insufficient clarity in the public presentation of some of these things then I would have to conclude that they take the view — as I do from time to time — that the presentation in the media is insufficient and that probably the effort on the part of those who are in a position better to inform themselves to do so and get it across to the public is inadequate.

I am not blaming the media. The Minister has a responsibility here, too.

Will the Minister agree that if in any case the DPP is dissatisfied with the content of the case it is open to the DPP to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court? Would the Minister be very clear and explicit about that? There is a certain amount of confusion in the House and there is a danger that clarity will not come from these questions here. Secondly, is the Minister aware that the Attorney General has a responsibility to ensure that justice is fair and equitable and that on behalf of the Government the Attorney General oversees in a general way the conduct of justice and can consequently confer with the DPP to ensure that this is so and to advise the Government?

Both of the questions the Deputy has raised are matters of fact. He has referred, although not in detail, to procedures which exist either in practice or in law. In any case which is instigated by the DPP, if the DPP feels dissatisfied with the way the case has been dealt with, certain avenues are open to him by which he can proceed further with the case. It is in the first instance a matter for the DPP to decide in any given case whether to pursue any one of those avenues.

On the second point raised by the Deputy, again he has referred to a matter of fact which, however, he will be aware is a procedure which is very rarely used.

Top
Share