This Bill, as the title shows, is intended to ensure that suitable courthouses will be provided where they are required throughout the country. The law as it stands is antiquated, and we find it very difficult to enforce it. As an example, the principal statutes regulating the provision and maintenance of courthouses are: the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1836; the County Dublin Grand Jury Act, 1844, and the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877. while the position in some counties is quite satisfactory, in other counties it is most unsatisfactory. Some years ago very little difficulty arose with regard to courthouses; suitable provision had been made, but many of those courthouses have been neglected and they have got into a condition of disrepair, and local bodies seem to be reluctant to have them put into proper repair. I think Senators are aware, from reading the newspaper reports, that in many instances Circuit Court judges have refused to sit in certain towns owing to the lack of suitable accommodation, proper provision not being made for litigants and others engaged in those courts. The result has been that the judges have held their sittings in other towns in the county, where there was suitable courthouse accommodation. That has resulted in considerable hardship to litigants and others.
While the position in regard to the Circuit Courts in many instances is not satisfactory, the position is much worse in relation to the District Courts. As Senators are aware, under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, there were very wide powers given to the District Courts. There was a very limited jurisdiction under the Petty Sessions Act. Under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, in criminal matters the jurisdiction was very much extended, while on the civil side it was also extended. A lot of the business previously transacted by the County Court judges is now being dealt with by district justices. Under the Petty Sessions Jurisdiction Act of 1851 local authorities are limited to an expenditure of £10 in providing courthouse accommodation for district justices. That might have been all right at the time when the petty sessions court was held, perhaps, once a month, and when there was very little business to be transacted owing to the limited jurisdiction it had. The accommodation at that time consisted, perhaps, of a room for the day of the sitting, with a locker where the court records were locked up. With the increased jurisdiction the position to-day is different, and £10 is absolutely inadequate to provide suitable courthouse accommodation for the District Courts.
The main purpose of the Bill is, firstly, to lay down clearly what are the rights and duties of public authorities with regard to providing proper courthouse accommodation; secondly, to provide for the control and custody of courthouse accommodation being vested in the county registrar or the District Court clerk, as the case may be, and, thirdly, to remove the existing limits of expenditure, namely, £10, in respect of the cost of district courthouses. In the other House some exception was taken to the control being vested in the county registrar or the District Court clerk, but the position, as the law stands at the moment, is that the jurisdiction over a county courthouse building, for example, where the county council also meets, is vested in the under-sheriff. What we are proposing in this Bill is that only so much of that building as is required, or as is being used for courthouse purposes, shall be under the control of the county registrar. We do not want, or desire, to have any clash of jurisdiction between the county council and the county registrar. The county registrar must be responsible, and will be responsible under this Bill, for that portion of the county building which is required for courthouse purposes, and the District Court clerk will be responsible for the buildings in which the District Courts of his area are held.
