Vol. 483 No. 6
22 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will introduce legislation to regulate the current operation of the poor box system in courts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21269/97]
The court poor box system has been in place for many years and predates the foundation of the State. It is not a practice specifically regulated in legislation.
The Deputy will appreciate the decision of a court in any case is a matter for the presiding judge who makes his or her decision having heard all the evidence in the case. The Deputy will also appreciate that, in accordance with our Constitution, the Judiciary is independent in the exercise of its judicial functions, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution and the law.
The recent apparent growth in the use of the court poor box system is a matter of concern to me and is one I raised with my predecessor when in Opposition as spokesman on justice issues. I asked the Attorney General for his opinion on the matter and when that is received, I will give further consideration to the matter.
(Mayo): I thank the Minister for his reply. I put it to him this is a distortion of the principle of justice being applied equally. Does he accept that if a person can afford a contribution to a judge's pet charity, he walks free without a conviction, endorsement, suspension or criminal record? Is the Minister aware that at Kilcock District Court recently 33 motorists escaped conviction because they were prepared to pay up to £20,000 to the District Justice's pet charity. In one case, a person drove at a speed of 120 miles per hour on the M4, one of the most dangerous stretches of road, and yet that person was in a position to make a substantial payment to the judge's pet charity and walked out without a record. If one cannot pay, one faces the full rigour of the law, including a conviction, an endorsement, a possible suspension, a fine and jail if one cannot pay the fine. Does the Minister accept that is wrong?
The Deputy will appreciate it is not for me to comment on decisions made by the courts which, under the Constitution, are independent of the Executive. I agree it is a matter of concern and I have sought a full report from the Attorney General. When his opinion is to hand, I will decide what steps are appropriate in the context of that opinion. Meanwhile, I am sure Deputy Higgins will appreciate it is not open to me to criticise or be seen to interfere in any way with decisions of the Judiciary.
(Mayo): Does the Minister accept there is a volume of evidence which suggests the system is being abused? From the point of view of the implementation of the Road Traffic Acts, operation lifesaver is in operation in the area where this judge administers his own distorted sense of duty and fair play. This is making a mockery of operation lifesaver in light of the unprecedented carnage on our roads. Given that the President of the District Court liaises with judges of that court, does the Minister consider it more worthwhile appraising the President, Mr. Smithwick, of his anxieties in the matter, rather than resorting to the conduit of the Attorney General?
I thank the Minister for a reply to a written question I tabled recently. It shows how the amounts have escalated. For example, in 1993, the figure was £139,750. In 1996, that had jumped to £305,481. I sought details from the Minister relating to the charities which benefited. The Minister replied that money paid into the poor box is recorded separately in the District Court offices in the general cash account, moneys are paid out on foot of a direction from a District Court Judge and in the main are paid out to local charities and that it would not be possible, without the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of staff time, to compile a list of the names of the charities which benefited in this regard or on the amounts paid to each charity.
This is public money paid to a public court poor box and the amounts stated in the reply to my question comprise individual contributions. If these have been paid to give the cumulative amounts in the reply, it should be possible to establish the charities benefiting and which have benefited. Is the Minister prepared to find out which charities benefited and make the information available to me as soon as possible?
As Deputy Higgins is aware, the moneys concerned are paid out to a wide variety of charities and that is done, as far as I am aware, on foot of a direction made by a District Court judge. As the Deputy pointed out, these payments are made in the main to local charities. The court poor box system is used to some degree by most District Court justices. I understand the vast majority of judges who use this system do so only in a number of cases.
Prior to Deputy Higgins tabling this question, I referred the matter to the Attorney General on 15 October 1997 and I await his advice on it. I am not prepared to engage in criticism of the courts, the manner in which they make decisions or the decisions. I intend to take on board the advice of the Attorney General on the matter and, having considered his opinion, to decide the best course of action.
I am afraid it is not open to me to elaborate any further on the matter. There is a strong argument that there is a statutory basis for the system under the Probation of Offenders Act. No doubt, some people will make a contrary argument, but, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I believe the most prudent thing to do is to await the advice of the Attorney General on the matter and address the situation from there.
