Vol. 452 No. 7
3 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice the number of petitions to reduce or remit fines under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, that have been processed through her Department since the formation of this Government; the number that were successful; the procedures which applied in the processing of those petitions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8548/95]
A total of 598 petitions have been finalised since 15 December 1994. A number of these would have already been in the process of consideration when I took office. Each case was considered on its merits and such reports as were considered necessary to assist in consideration of the petitions were sought from various sources.
Four hundred and six of the petitions were refused. Extension of time to pay, of an average of three months, was provided in 71 cases and an offer of partial mitigation of fines was made to 94 petitioners. Fines were remitted in full in the remaining 27 petitions — most of which were remitted at the request of the prosecuting authority, the local authority or Garda Síochána, in cases where the fine-on-the-spot penalty had already been paid.
Does the Minister agree that politicians should have no business in seeking to unravel penalties imposed by the courts and accept that the judgement handed down by Mr. Justice Geoghegan in the High Court was correct? What direction has she given within her Department to freeze and halt the petitions system? Mr. Justice Geoghegan stated in the High Court that this is an improper use of the Executive power to remit penalties.
Mr. Justice Geoghegan did not declare in his judgment that this system is unconstitutional nor did he state that it should be done away with. He stated that it should be operated in the way intended under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, that is, sparingly. Therefore the power conferred on the Minister for Justice in that section has not been found to be unconstitutional. The Attorney General's advice to me is that the power to remit fines imposed by a court of law is the Executive administration of mercy rather than the judicial administration of justice; that the Constitution does not require that the exercise of such a power of remission by the Executive should involve a public hearing and that there is no legal obligation on the Executive to consult the district justice etc.
The manner in which I have dealt with the 598 petitions is in keeping with what Mr. Justice Geoghegan demanded, that is, that it be used sparingly and where there are mitigating circumstances. No petitions have been dealt with in my Department since the judgement was handed down on 28 April. I am having it considered to see what method should be adopted in the Department given that many files remain to be dealt with. At any one time there are 2,500 files awaiting attention.
Since the late 1980s the number of petitions received has increased considerably, from a figure of between 1,000 and 2,000 to between 5,000 and 6,000 per annum. Although section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, is constitutional Mr. Justice Geoghegan stated in his judgment that we should ensure that this system is operated in the way intended.
While I accept that the practice of remitting penalties by the Executive is not unconstitutional, will the Minister accept that the Constitution places an obligation on us to ensure that the justice system is seen to operate in a transparent way? Will she clarify whether she intends to introduce new guidelines or legislation and accept that any remission of fines should be a matter of public record and the information published in Iris Oifigiúil as mentioned in the courts? Will she agree that in the context of our political culture the word should go out that applications to the Minister for Justice to have fines and penalties remitted should not be considered as a matter or routine at politicians' clinics?
I made it clear within days of it being handed down that I would not be appealing the judgment and that I would consider which method should be adopted within the Department of Justice. Issues such as whether information should be published in Iris Oifigiúil are being considered. I also understand that the issue of whether persons should be allowed to pay fines on a phased basis has been considered many times by previous Ministers for Justice. I have commenced an examination of the practicalities involved. Such a move would involve major administrative changes in District Court offices which would have to collect a few pounds each week from someone on low income. The new procedures will be announced when finalised.
While the time available for dealing with priority questions is exhausted I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 in ordinary time as is permitted by the new procedures of this House.
