Vol. 491 No. 2
5 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the contributions in accordance with the judges' orders paid direct to a charitable organisation or transmitted through the Garda or the Probation and Welfare Service in Kells and Kilcock District Courts; and the amount paid to each charitable organisation for each of the years from 1995 to 1997. [11568/98]
With regard to contributions transmitted by the Probation and Welfare Service, at Kilcock District Court the total amount of charitable donations made during 1995 was £4,600, during 1996 £13,280 and during 1997 charitable donations from that court transmitted through the Probation and Welfare Service totalled £98,646. For Kells District Court the equivalent figures are £3,650 during 1995, £500 during 1996 and £11,400 during 1997. I have arranged for a breakdown of these payments, listing the individual amounts paid to each of the charitable organisations in question, to be forwarded to the Deputy immediately.
With regard to the contributions transmitted through the Garda, this information is being compiled currently by the Garda and will be forwarded to the Deputy as soon as it is available. In cases where the judge ordered a direct contribution to a charitable organisation by a person who was before the court no record was kept by the court office. This was because the contribution did not pass through the court's accounts. The defendant made the donation directly and obtained a receipt which was then produced in court.
This practice of ordering charitable contributions ceased at Kilcock District Court in January 1998 and at Kells District Court in November 1997.
Mayo: Does the Minister accept that in the case where no record is kept an unorthodox practice is made more unorthodox? It is an undesirable distortion of justice whereby one may do a deal with the judge and have no conviction recorded if one has the money. What happens if a person makes a contribution by way of a cheque which bounces or is withdrawn? The Minister told us some time ago that he would ask the Attorney General to examine the practice with a view to making recommendations. At what stage is that examination?
With regard to ensuring the money reaches the designated charities, the money is paid to the court poor box and processed through the court's general cash account. It is subject to normal audit procedures. In the case of a direct donation to a charity by a defendant, the defendant must produce a receipt to the court for the donation. In the case of donations facilitated by the Garda or the Probation and Welfare Service a defendant would produce a bank draft in court and the judge would direct the Garda or the Probation and Welfare Service to forward it to the designated charity.
The Garda and the Probation and Welfare Service would keep local records of bank drafts passed to them for this purpose and of receipts from the recipient organisations. Because such donations do not pass through the accounts of the Garda or the Probation and Welfare Service they are not subject to normal audit procedures.
With regard to cheques bouncing, the charity concerned provides a receipt which the convicted person produces in court. One cannot guard against every possible eventuality in life but one would hope that the recipients would ensure, as far as possible, that they receive the requisite amount.
Did the events referred to in the question take place under one judge or more than one judge? Is the exponential growth in donations reflected nationwide? If so millions of pounds must have been collected in this manner, I suspect to the amazement of most people.
I omitted to reply to Deputy Higgins's question about the Attorney General's advice which was sought in October 1997. I understand that substantial work has been carried out in connection with the provision of this advice and I expect to receive it when it is complete. It has not yet been completed and discussions on it are ongoing.
With regard to Deputy Upton's question, I understand that the same judge sits in Kilcock and Kells but I cannot be certain whether a temporary judge may sit in a given court at a given time. My understanding is that they are in the same District Court area. The poor box system is widely in use, although I am reliably informed that judges do not use it in the majority of cases. The majority of judges use it in a limited number of cases. The Deputy is right, a considerable amount of money is collected through the system throughout the country.
I would be grateful if the Minister would furnish me with the information to be provided to Deputy Higgins. Who determines which charitable organisation will receive the donation? Who benefits from the interest that accrues on the money and what system is in place to deal with it?
The system that appears to operate quite often is that the convicted person is asked to make a contribution to the court poor box. In many cases he or she makes a contribution to a charity designated by the District Justice and gets a receipt. In those circumstances I would imagine that interest on the money would go to the recipient charity.
The Minister does not know.
That must be the assumption. There might not be interest. The charity concerned might decide to disburse the money that day to some worthy cause. That would be within its discretion. It stands to reason that the charity concerned would utilise the money in whatever way it considered best. I cannot conceive of a situation whereby, once the money has been received by the charity, any company other than the charity would make off with the interest.
The Minister has misunderstood me. I am talking about the period before the charity receives the money, the possible interregnum before the payment is made to the charity.
I do not believe there would be an interregnum. In the instances I outlined, the individual would go with the money or cheque to the charity.
(Mayo): I am delighted that the courts in Kells and Kilcock have both ceased the practice. I hope the focus of attention on the issue in this House was instrumental in that. Would the Minister accept that it is unorthodox and wrong in principle that no record of the whereabouts or destination of public money collected in the public courts is kept by the District Court Office.
Money paid directly into the poor box is recorded separately in the District Court Office and would appear in the general cash account. That is different from money paid to a charity by an individual who comes back with a receipt. Those moneys which are paid on the direction of the District Justice are in the main paid to local charities and the accounts are audited by my Department's internal audit unit. They are also open to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The interest on moneys paid into the poor box would be a matter for the District Justice. If the District Justice ordered that the interest earned during an interregnum on moneys to be paid to a given charity were to be given to the charity concerned, then that would have to be done. I would anticipate that that would not usually happen, but rather that a specific amount indicated by the District Justice would be paid over.
