Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Oct 1999

Vol. 509 No. 4

Written Answers. - Courts Service.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

315 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason a person referred to in the Adjournment Debate of 22 April 1999 has not been notified of the outcome of his Court application in spite of his statement that notification had been issued [20266/99]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

As I informed the Deputy during the Adjournment Debate in question and in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 485 on 20 April 1999, an inquiry into how the person in question did not receive the original notification of the court decision established that this was due to administrative error. In response to that debate, my Department on my instructions, asked the chief registrar of the High Court to urgently review the procedures followed by the court office when notifying prisoners of the outcome of habeas corpus applications. I also brought this matter to the attention of the chief executive designate of the new courts service. Moreover, I directed my officials to inquire into the matter and on foot of that inquiry the court office in question issued copies of the judges rulings to the prison on 13 April 1999.

As part of the normal procedure when such documents issue to a prison, they are accompanied by a covering letter from the court office to the applicant indicating the ruling of the court. On receipt of the documents and covering letter the prison authorities would make these available to the applicant and record that fact. Given the circumstances surrounding this case and in an effort to issue the documents to the prison as speedily as possible, it appears that this covering letter was overlooked and did not issue. While the court documents were placed on the applicant's prison file, I am informed by the prison authorities that there is no indication on that file that he was given access to same.

Quite obviously these administrative errors should not have occurred and this is a matter of very serious concern to me.

In previous answers in relation to this case I indicated that procedures in the court office were to be reviewed. I have again brought this matter to the attention of the chief executive officer designate of the courts service and asked him to examine the issues arising as a matter of urgency so as to ensure such errors are not repeated in future and to draw up a written procedure for dealing with court applications of this nature. I have also today asked the director general of the prison service and the chief executive officer designate of the courts service to meet urgently to identify and put in place measures in both these agencies to prevent a recurrence of errors of this nature.

Regrettably I understand that up to recently the person involved had not received a copy of the court documents in question. I understand that the person in question has since completed his sentence. When this again was brought to my notice I directed that copies of the relevant documentation should be sent to his last known address and this was done yesterday, 18 October 1999.